world

Obama urges black voters to repel GOP in Nov elections

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Republicans not only want to turn back the clock, particularly with the fools in the tea-party movement, they want the clocks to run backwards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is the most divisive figure ever to occupy the WH.

Luckily, nobody really listens to the guy anymore. Blowing a trillion on a failed stimulus plan that increased unemployment ensures no one seriously thinks he understands economics. Going after Arizona with far more determination and decisiveness than he shows in dealing with Iran or Hamas has opened people's eyes.

Like the hilarious-because-it-is-sadly-true Jon Stewart skit showed us - - Sorry,the race card has been maxed out. Won't work anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans not only want to turn back the clock, particularly with the fools in the tea-party movement, they want the clocks to run backwards.

amithinjapan, we can start this whole argument again, but let me at least jump ahead to a few points. Blacks hs traditionally voted Republican in the south inthe past. All of those staunch segregationist from the deep south, Bull Connor, Geroge Wallce Sen. Byrd were all Democrats.

As a Balck man myself, I find it sort of ridiculous for the sitting Presient to tell a froup of people that they should only vote becase of their ethnic identity. If we would do that, we still wouldn't have been able to elect him since Blacks only make up 13% of the US population. Health care, unemployment and the other issues that America face are not only Black issues but every American's issues as well.

But the hall grew quiet as Obama warned, “Remember, the other side has a plan too. It’s a plan to turn back the clock on every bit of progress we’ve made.”

The only thing that the Republicans want to turn back the clock on is the Health Care bill which states are now starting to argue in courts and some of his other laws that aer being shown to have been bad choices. Obama is just pandering, and it is really beneath him to do so. Starting a false rumor, knwing that most people will not actualy research the issue and find out the truth, but jsut go on emotion.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I ahve to accept that he is my President, but for heavn's sake, act like he wants to reprsent the American people and stop pandering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Obama really needs to do is get the white voters to reject the GOP, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has this community organizer ever stopped campaigning? Seems to me he has been at this non-stop for two years now. Aren´t Americans ever getting tired of this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny how the black voters, white voters, hispanic voters, and asian voters are all upset with Obama and the Dems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it sort of ridiculous for the sitting Presient to tell a froup of people that they should only vote becase of their ethnic identity.

Agreed. Obama needs to abandon his racist views and recognized we're all Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like the hilarious-because-it-is-sadly-true Jon Stewart skit showed us - - Sorry,the race card has been maxed out. Won't work anymore.

Wait a sec, but the race card belongs to the Dems, and it isn't supposed have a limit.

Agreed. Obama needs to abandon his racist views and recognized we're all Americans.

I'd like to see this happen. I really would. But after 2 years of non stop campaigning, of non stop demonizing the Republicans and every single thing they stand for, its hard to believe he's going to wake up one day, even after November, and realize he is President of all Americans, not just the blacks, and not just the Dems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans not only want to turn back the clock, particularly with the fools in the tea-party movement, they want the clocks to run backwards"

Very aptly put.

"As a Balck man myself, "

It is hard being a balck man anywhere in the world. I don't think we get to hear enough about the plight of balck people and I am glad that you represent them here on our forum.

"What Obama really needs to do is get the white voters to reject the GOP, lol."

That's the Tea Party's job. I don't think they need Obama's help.

I recall a night about 5 years ago when Bush had a fundraiser and had a room of probably 200 multimillionaire fatcats. He called them "his base." They wrote him checks. Here is a president telling people to "go back to their neighborhoods" to tell people what is going on, and to organize locally and work for change. That represents a contrast to me. And I am not talking black and white.

Jon Stewart and I share a criticism of Obama: He was elected as a revolutionary but leads as a legislator. He has got to do more and do it faster or he will lose the support of people who are doing most of the bleeding from Bush's tax cuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

O'Donnell? Witchcraft? What?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama? Frank Marshall Davis? Bill Ayers? What?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has really sunk very low this time, but has shown that basically, he is racist. He does not deserve to occupy the White House. I hope decent Americans, of all creeds and colours and none, come out in force and oust the Democrats from power. I hope they do the same in 2012 and get rid of Obama, too. The man has lost it, totally. He obviously knows he is in trouble, and this shows his desparation. Roll on November!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama chose to exploit the financial crisis, not solve it."

Mitt Romney

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He needs to persuade all people regardless of color that he is not another George Bush

He does that every time he opens his mouth to speak.

Literally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He needs to persuade all people regardless of color that he is not another George Bush

How? To do that he has to lead. Most Americans have concluded all he wants to do is campaign. When is the guy they voted for going to show up? Besides, he keeps blaming Bush for all his problems, but this only makes Americans compare how they were before the Pelosi Reid Congress and how they are now.

It also makes us (I don't know about other nationalities) think he is a loser, and a whiny, thin-skinned one at that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He was elected as a revolutionary but leads as a legislator. He has got to do more and do it faster or he will lose the support of people who are doing most of the bleeding from Bush's tax cuts.

This is a strange criticism, because we've been inundated for months with the opposite: that Obama has tried doing too much too soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides, he keeps blaming Bush for all his problems

LOL!! Just like the critics on the right keep pointing back to Jimmy Carter.

He rightfully reminds people that the problems faced by Americans were heavily contributed to by the party that controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for the better part of the last 15 years.

We know how much mendacious and power-hungry conservatives have invested in the failure of the current president. That's their form of love of nation showing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Congressional Black Caucus"

That's a racist organization that excludes whites, Hispanics and Asians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to the churches, and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we’ve got more work to do,”

You are looking at a huge amount of unemployed black folks right now. The Gov/banks/Corporations has routinely attacked this group the strongest in their abortion/alcohol/drug/med programs and they are the most indoctrinated media-wise. Now you see a huge pullback in funding/policing/entitlements. These are dangerous times for these people and I hope they pull together and form a huge voting block like the Tea-Partiers and are able to get real change in cities like Detroit/Baltimore/Chicago.

I also see huge opportunity in buying city homes/properties if the people are able to find loans. The uncertainty is probably the worse factor = when you are unsure economically it is hard to commit to something.

Detroit is a good example -when McCain went up there running for president he was really out of touch with reality and showed he doesn't care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not black but I love Obama and do hate the GOP, I do not hate the GOP, George W. because they are rich and white, but because these idiots start wars in places like Iraq and at the the same time are great friends with the family of Bin Laden, in Saudi Arabia. If we have so much money to go out and start wars all over the place, we should have MONEY to revamp our economy, our schools, our hospitals etc..so my vote is for the GOP to burn in hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to the churches, and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we’ve got more work to do,”

In a way, this is actually patronizing from Obama. He is telling the CBC (Congressmen who are elected and the other people that they invite there) that the only place you can get the word to Black people is at a barbershop (from the movie of the same name), a beauty shop (spin off movie), and churches (you know, all Blacks go to church). I guess we don't attend other things like school PTA's or the mall or any other civic organizations, we just like to hang out on the "stoop" and kick it old school.

Now if a Sarah Palin or any other Repbulican would have said the same thing, we would be hearing cries of racism and sterotyping from the right.

I am not black but I love Obama and do hate the GOP, I do not hate the GOP, George W. because they are rich and white, but because these idiots start wars in places like Iraq and at the the same time are great friends with the family of Bin Laden, in Saudi Arabia. If we have so much money to go out and start wars all over the place, we should have MONEY to revamp our economy, our schools, our hospitals etc..so my vote is for the GOP to burn in hell.

elbudamexicano, I hate to tell this to you, but the Dems voted for the Iraq war too, and a lot of them are rich (just look at all the money George Soros has contributed and the other Hollywood fundraisers that go to the Dems).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess we don't attend other things like school PTA's or the mall

At school PTA meetings, not to mention "the mall," there is very little time on the agena devoted to discussion of national politics. So it's rather stupid and petty to criticize President Obama on this point.

we just like to hang out on the "stoop" and kick it old school.

Those are your words, not President Obama's.

I hate to tell this to you, but the Dems voted for the Iraq war too

A complete distortion. A fair number of Democrats voted to give a president the authority to launch a military operation IF, and only IF, Iraq was proven (via inspections) to be hiding WMD. Recall that Bush promised Congress and the American people that, like the invasion of Afghanistan, he would seek a vote at the UN before launching an attack.

It's sad that the real supporters of war against Iraq have to turn to such lie tactics to smear anyone who voted with them in good faith.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is some interesting commentary about the Tea Party by Daily Telegraph's US Editor, based in Washington DC Tony Harden:

10 mistakes people make about the Tea Party

By Toby Harnden World Last updated: September 16th, 2010 122 Comments Comment on this article Official Washington is in near meltdown over Christine O’Donnell’s victory in the Delaware Republican primary. Senior Republicans are apoplectic that they will (in their view) fail to gain the Delaware seat and therefore cannot win control of the Senate (which was a long shot in any case). There’s a glut of commentary and assumptions about the Tea Party and much of it is wrong. Here are some common mistakes:

The Tea Party will fade away. Christine O’Donnell’s victory confirms that it is a major electoral force. Many of those involved have not voted before. The movement is growing, not shrinking.

It will damage the Republican party. If the Republican party can harness its power, the electoral benefits could be huge. So far, the party hierarchy is being condescending and dismissive. But even if this continues, Republicans will benefit in November from the energy and excitement that the Tea Party is generating.

The Tea Party is racist. This charge is based on little more than a few signs that have appeared at some rallies (How many offensive signs are there an anti-war rallies? Many more than you can see at a Tea Party event) and some overheated statements by individuals. It’s essentially a Left-wing smear against the movement and it has failed.

Tea Party nominees are too extreme and will be defeated by Democrats in November. In isolated cases – including O’Donnell’s – this might be true. But Democrats are delusional is they think that a split on the right will save them in the mid-terms. For every Democrat who survives in this way, three or four will be swept away. And look at the polls in places like Kentucky and Florida where Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – until recently branded as unelectable – look like they’re on course for comfortable victories.

The Tea Party is part of the Republican party. It’s not. Tea partiers are conservatives but they have little interest in simply achieving a Republican Congress. Its ambitions are much bigger than that.

The Tea Party cannot elect a President. Until very recently, this seemed like a given. It now seems there is every chance that a Tea Party candidate – Sarah Palin? – can win the GOP nomination in 2012. And with the state the country’s in and the sinking popularity of President Barack Obama, theres every possibility that whoever the Republicans nominate will win.

The Tea Party can be told what to do. Republican leaders are finding out that this is simply not the case.

The Tea Party is full of loonies who believe masturbation is evil and dinosaur bones are fake. We’ll see a lot of citations of the “nutty” (K.Rove) opinions of Tea partiers – especially, for the next few days at least, by O’Donnell. But the broader Tea Party has little concern about social issues. It is primarily a low-tax, small-government movement.

The rise of the Tea Party shows that America is disintegrating. That’s certainly what you might think if you read all the liberal commentary about the Tea Party. But all this really illustrates is how the American elites have failed to grasp what is happening.

The Tea Party is an angry reaction to Obama’s 2008 victory, which was a true realignment of US politics. There was no political realignment in 2008. Obama won because he was anti-Bush and the country was in the mood for a complete change. It was not a mandate for increasing the national debt and growing government. While the Tea Party opposes Obama and all he stands for, it is not especially focussed on him personally. In fact, Congress – Democrats and Republicans – seems more unpopular than Obama among Tea partiers.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is some interesting commentary about the Tea Party by Daily Telegraph's US Editor

Yes, Toby Harnden is a Brit, and I find that fact interesting given all of the trash-talk here whenever someone who isn't American renders an opinion on the U.S. political scene. So here are some responses to Toby's points from an American:

The Tea Party will not fade away as long as there are ignorant white people who feel victimized and angry. And currently there is no shortage of those folks by a long shot.

Whether or not the Tea Party will hurt the Republicans isn't the issue. German national socialism coalesced out of a number of far right-wing factions -- and it was temporarily great for the party that achieved power in 1933, but ultimately a disaster for the nation.

The tea party itself is not racist. Any more than the GOP was racist in the 1960s when party leaders adopted the "southern strategy," which a recent GOP leader apologized for as being a racist, divisive strategy. But the tea party does make clear distinctions between a "master" group and an "inferior" group -- the former being the "patriots" and "real Americans" who see things their way, and the enemies of the America who are everyone who disagrees with them.

"But Democrats are delusional is they think that a split on the right will save them in the mid-terms." Why should this mid-term election be any different than any election going back to the mid-1930s. Americans were delusional if they thought that any party could have gotten the nation out of the hole it was driven into in 2008.

"Obama won because he was anti-Bush and the country was in the mood for a complete change." LOL!! The near-complete meltdown of the economy in 2008 had people terrified. (Which I guess affected their "mood." LOL!!)

Thanks for the laughs, Toby.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like Obama's itching for a race war.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder what he'll say to the Congressional White Caucus.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - Has this community organizer ever stopped campaigning? Seems to me he has been at this non-stop for two years now. Aren´t Americans ever getting tired of this?

Campaigning appears to be the only thing that he is truly effective at and then only for himself. Fellow elected Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from his endorsement and his policies. Policies that they voted for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! Just like the critics on the right keep pointing back to Jimmy Carter.

Comparisons of the ineptitude and disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter seem particularly apt. The fact that the worst President in US History is being favorably compared to the current US President is what is concerning.

Americans were delusional if they thought that any party could have gotten the nation out of the hole it was driven into in 2008.

Let see, balance the budget, cut taxes even further, rewrite the regulations to ease burden on companies, and make businesses more profitable. Yes, I'd say it could have been done, had Obama had the intelligence to realize what needed to happen. The incompetence shown by him and his team, is only prolonging this recession, and may very well turn it into a full blown depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Toby Harnden is a Brit, and I find that fact interesting given all of the trash-talk here whenever someone who isn't American renders an opinion on the U.S. political scene.

That isn't really a surprise though when you think about it considering generally how condescending those opinions are of America from Non-Americans. I would say the reason for the trash talk generally deals with how the message is being delivered not the message itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I'd say it could have been done...

LOL!! That's the insanity that causes people to vote for people like George W. Bush -- who promised he could maintain the surplus, pay down the debt and give deep tax cuts which were touted to lead to unparalleled prosperity. None of that happened (except for the tax cuts), and the nation enjoyed the worst economic decade since the Depression years.

This why rational people are so insistent at repelling the brain-dead ideology of today's GOP.

The United States grew economically in the post-war period at unprecedented rates -- after a government spending spree that dwarfs today's spending as a percentage of GCP, extremely strong unions, and a top marginal tax rate in the high 90% range. The GOP ideology maintains that economic growth is impossible under those conditions -- an ideology that conveniently ignores history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At school PTA meetings, not to mention "the mall," there is very little time on the agena devoted to discussion of national politics. So it's rather stupid and petty to criticize President Obama on this point.

yabits, then why didn't he say that people actually go to the political debates and rallies and ask questions of the candidated, from both parties. You can discuss those issues, but Black people go to more places than just barber shops and beauty shops. Obama is just pandering. I am sure if this was a Jewish gathering, he would have said that they should discuss this at the deli, or if it was a muslim group, at the local mosque.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Christine O’Donnell’s victory confirms that it is a major electoral force."

Her victory confirms that gullible people will fall for any old thing. Witchcraft, evangelism, tax cuts, you know.

"Wonder what he'll say to the Congressional White Caucus."

They have already had that for centuries. They called it simply "congress."

"balance the budget, cut taxes even further, rewrite the regulations to ease burden on companies, and make businesses more profitable."

All in a day's work, right? Bush lite had 8 years to do this, and all he managed to do was enrich his cronies. Doing these things while making America a stronger nation and taking care of its people is a little bit more of a trick, I think. Bush showed that it is easy to plunder. Obama is showing that it is hard to build. Is that a surprise? That is why Obama is asking all Americans for help and askng them to get involved with the system rather than asking them to bring it all down, as the Tea Party is doing.

"how condescending those opinions are of America from Non-Americans"

You want honest or polite? Americans have been able to let their self-perceptions float along for decades based on the good will of its friends and allies, who have largely remained quiet and watched the US stumble and who have sometimes stumbled along with it. But the US, this Lindsay Lohan of the world, would benefit more from hearing straight talk than from cheerleading. The US has got to shape up, even if it has to hit rock bottom first.

Speaking as an American, let me say here and now to all foreigners: pile it on thick. Call 'em as you see 'em. If Americans can't see what is right in front of them, point it out. America needs all the help it can get, and polite silence will not work. Words aren't going to hurt the land of the free and the home of the brave. Alpha, Molenir, Sailwind and the rest are perfect examples. If the plain truth is not plain to them, then how will polite and guarded conversation be even comprehensible to them?

It is not a matter of anti-American propaganda, it is a matter of open criticism and a free exchange of views. The US needs to make changes to keep up with the rest of the world. If its people don't know what is going on, please educate them. Think of it as public service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! That's the insanity that causes people to vote for people like George W. Bush

So, if its insanity to vote for someone like Bush, what is a vote for someone twice as stupid, and a hundred times less competent? Obama is making Bush look good, and considering how bad Bush was, that is quite the accomplishment.

The United States grew economically in the post-war period at unprecedented rates -- after a government spending spree that dwarfs today's spending as a percentage of GCP, extremely strong unions, and a top marginal tax rate in the high 90% range.

Way to rewrite history. Care to explain the spending spree that occurred previous to WW2, that completely failed to end the depression? Or perhaps you'd like to mention what you previously failed to consider. The tax cuts that occurred under Truman, the massive reduction in power of those same unions, and the removal of price controls, all of which helped the economy. Why is it that so many suckers still buy into the government spending stimulus idea, despite a huge amount of evidence that contradicts it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am sure if this was a Jewish gathering, he would have said that they should discuss this at the deli, or if it was a muslim group, at the local mosque.

LOL!! Yeah, he might well have said delis and synagogues, and for Muslims, mosques. He said "churches" for African-Americans and you're all over his case.

Just plain dumb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never mind what the blacks think. The GOP will just move some of their voting machines into less populous white neighborhoods leaving the ones that don't work right and one tolken one that is flawless in the black neighborhoods.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape

Bull Connor, Geroge Wallce Sen. Byrd were all Democrats.

And they were voted in over and over again because blacks were helped by them. Every time they passed a bill to help poor whites, it helped poor blacks. So from that perspective these democrats were put back into office over and over.

Helter_Skelter

I find it sort of ridiculous for the sitting Presient to tell a froup of people that they should only vote becase of their ethnic identity.

All george bush had to do was talk and whites came out, but he also knew that most blacks weren't his supporters. bush was mayonnaise jar white.

Well, I'm not black, but I am an Obama supporter. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Care to explain the spending spree that occurred previous to WW2, that completely failed to end the depression?

It was a "spending spress" to brain-dead conservaqtives -- but nothing compared to WWII. What occurred prior was curtailed by FDR's reduction of spending in 1936, which caused the economy to dip back down again. Totsl government spending after the war started dwarfs what government is spending today, when takan as a percentage of GDP.

The tax cuts that occurred under Truman.

LOL!! What tax cuts? The marginal rate was still in the high 90% range.

the massive reduction in power of those same unions

What "massive reduction in power?" Well before the unions reached the peak of their power, the US economy had long been on the upswing.

Why is it that so many suckers still buy into the government spending stimulus idea, despite a huge amount of evidence that contradicts it.

What contradictory evidence? The US government spent massively to win WWII; the top marginal rates were still above 90% well into the late 1950s. Since you can't be specific, readers have to assume that you're just making stuff up.

Chart on US gov't spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Stats on top marginal tax rates: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never mind what the blacks think.The GOP will just move some of their voting machines into less populous white neighborhoods leaving the ones that don't work right and one tolken one that is flawless in the black neighborhoods.

Now I remember. MistWizrd - you are the guy who admitted back in July or August that you really never learned anything about the American political system or bothered to study civics in high school. It is impossible in America to do what you describe. Seriously, House Minority Leader John Boehner is just going to pick up the phone and have voting procedure in certain districts changed on a personal whim? You are pretty funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What contradictory evidence? The US government spent massively to win WWII; the top marginal rates were still above 90% well into the late 1950s. Since you can't be specific, readers have to assume that you're just making stuff up.

lol, and the country didn't miraculously emerge from the depression until after the war. Oddly enough, they slashed the budget dramatically after the war. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

LOL!! What tax cuts? The marginal rate was still in the high 90% range.

But you admit that taxes were cut. Do you admit that loopholes were also created? Because they were.

What "massive reduction in power?" Well before the unions reached the peak of their power, the US economy had long been on the upswing.

Ah, you've never heard of the Taft-Hartley act? Try doing a bit of research on the subject then come back.

Apart from all this though, do you really want to debate economics, and history in this thread?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apart from all this though, do you really want to debate economics, and history in this thread?

The point is when conservatives make statements about taxes and economic growth, they can neither back them up nor explain events that occurred contrary to their ideological biases.

So, when you said that FDR went on a "spending spree" and still didn't end the Depression, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about in terms of the "spree." Then you appear to claim that the economy rebounded after the budget was cut in the postwar years, but again it's clear here that you don't know what you're talking about either.

FDR's spending from 1933 to 1937 was roughly 10 to 11% of GDP. He lowered spending to under 10% after 1937, and the economy, which had been in a mild recovery, fell again. WWII increased spending to nearly 50% of GDP. The "decrease" in spending that you claim boosted the postwar recovery was to levels from 13 to 20% of GDP -- well under WWII levels, but WAY above FDR's "spending spree" years.

Conservative ideology can't explain that. And so you invent things.

The same is true with taxes: The top marginal rate was lowered a bit to around 84% in the postwar years, but raised again to 91% in the early 1950s -- and maintained at that level until 1963. Those levels -- averaging well above 85% -- did little to prevent the US from achieving a booming economy with a powerful, growing middle class.

If given just the numbers of spending at 50% of GDP and 85% top marginal tax-rate, the average conservative Kool-Aid dispenser would claim that no economy could boom under those conditions. And yet the American economy did boom. This is why all sane Americans should repel them.

The affects of Taft-Hartley would not be felt until a decade or more after its enactement in 1947. The power of unions was still very strong well into the 1960s -- and the economy rocketed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, when you said that FDR went on a "spending spree" and still didn't end the Depression, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about in terms of the "spree." Then you appear to claim that the economy rebounded after the budget was cut in the postwar years, but again it's clear here that you don't know what you're talking about either.

Sorry, but your statement proves rather that its you who doesn't know what you're talking about. It really boggles the mind, how anyone who knows anything about FDR and what he did to the country, actually likes the guy.

Yes, the spending as a percentage of GDP was above where FDR had it. And if that was the only factor involved, you might have a point. The fact is, that the government started undoing FDRs work. And it wasn't until after the war, and the massive expenditures of it, that the economy managed its rebound. The expenditures of WW2 did not drag the country out of the depression. What happened after the war did. And therein lies your problem. FDR failed, all his expenditures didn't help. All of his socialist programs, many of them hurt the economy and prolonged the depression. Quite a few of them such as the price controls, and the AAA put lots of people out of work. Hows that for your hero?

The same is true with taxes: The top marginal rate was lowered a bit to around 84% in the postwar years, but raised again to 91% in the early 1950s -- and maintained at that level until 1963. Those levels -- averaging well above 85% -- did little to prevent the US from achieving a booming economy with a powerful, growing middle class.

And why do you think that was? How many people actually paid 90% of their income to the government? There were tons of loopholes and tax shelters. When the marginal rates came down, they did away with many of those loopholes.

The affects of Taft-Hartley would not be felt until a decade or more after its enactement in 1947. The power of unions was still very strong well into the 1960s -- and the economy rocketed.

Wow, just talk about denial. Truman himself used it how many times? Yes, Unions were still strong, but that act undercut them, and allowed business to get out from under the unions to a certain extent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And it wasn't until after the war, and the massive expenditures of it, that the economy managed its rebound. The expenditures of WW2 did not drag the country out of the depression. What happened after the war did. And therein lies your problem. FDR failed, all his expenditures didn't help. All of his socialist programs, many of them hurt the economy and prolonged the depression.

As seen in the attached chart which reflects Depression-era unemployment statistics, FDR inherited an economy that was run into the ground by Republican low-tax, low-spending policies. Unemployment reached an average of 24% during '32-'33. FDR's policies took that rate down a full ten percentage points by 1937, when politicos convinced him to cut down on spending -- which had the impact of raising the unemployment rate nearly 5 points.

The government turned the spigot back on in 1939 and the unemployment rate was cut to below 10% for the first time in over a decade. Wartime spending only contributed more to drive the final nails in the high unemployment coffin.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to repel Republicans who are ready to “turn back the clock.”

Race-baiting by the White House. wonderful.

“What made the civil rights movement possible were foot soldiers like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters and standing up for freedom.

Yes, and what made civil rights legislation possible was the Republican Party forcing it through, while the Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

while the Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it.

Incorrect. Most Democrats voted for it, otherwise it could not have passed an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. There were Republicans who voted against it -- most notably Barry Goldwater, whose opposition helped gain him the leadership as the party's standard-bearer in 1964.

Strom Thurmond also strongly opposed it, as did all "Dixiecrats." We've got a Republican/Tea Partier this year who says he would have opposed it. Hence the "turning back the clock" reference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama just grows more irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most Democrats voted for it,

the majority of opposition were democrats. LBJ had to force his party to vote for it.

We've got a Republican/Tea Partier this year who says he would have opposed it.

that was incorrect, and even MSNBC admitted he never said that. meanwhile you have a sitting Dem who was KKK.

Hence the "turning back the clock" reference.

race-baiting, pure and simple.

:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

majority of opposition were democrats.

It's very interesting how the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights bill broke down:

In the House, 93% of Southern Democrats were opposed (7-87), and 100% of Southern Republicans were opposed (0-10). Northern Democrats were in favor by a margin of 145-9 or 94%, and Northen Republicans were in favor only by 85% (138-24).

In the Senate, 95% of Southern Democrats were opposed (1-20) and 100% of Southern Republicans opposed it (0-1). Among Northern Democrats 98% were in favor (45-1), and only 84% of Northern Republicans were in favor (27-5).

LBJ had to force his party to vote for it.

LOL!! Ludicrous. The numbers, and history, prove you wrong.

that was incorrect, and even MSNBC admitted he never said that

LOL! Paul indicated that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Bill as it was -- he clearly says that he would have had to work to change some of its provisions before he could have voted for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSpqB4XQmoo

meanwhile you have a sitting Dem who was KKK

We have? Who might that be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites