Politics | Obama: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of Him?


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: calgal5/30/2012 8:39:58 PM
   of 156324
 
The tricks are horrible.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: tonto who wrote (134008)5/30/2012 8:42:52 PM
From: calgal1 Recommendation   of 156324
 
He will win!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (133918)5/30/2012 9:55:50 PM
From: calgal   of 156324
 
Just listen to his transcripts and he tells on himself.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133935)5/30/2012 10:11:04 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations   of 156324
 
role model of kennytroll : convicted felon edward

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: calgal who wrote (134011)5/30/2012 10:11:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations   of 156324
 
In his recent speeches on the campaign trail and at official functions, Obama typically touts the fact that over the past two years, the economy has created more than 4 million new jobs, with more than 1 million in the past six months alone.

At a fundraiser last month, he called this "extraordinary progress."

But the economic recovery that Obama has presided over has been far from extraordinary. It hasn't even been ordinary.

In fact, it's come in well below average on several key indicators compared with the previous 10 economic recoveries, dating back to 1949, according to an IBD analysis of various economic data.

And on several measures, the current recovery — which started five months after Obama took office and is now in its 35th month — is the worst on record since World War II.

Here are the results.

Employment: By this point, the average job growth in the past 10 recoveries was 6.9%. Under Obama, jobs have grown by just 1.9%, according to data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Had the current recovery kept pace with just the average recovery over the past 60 years, there would be 6.5 million more people with jobs today, and the unemployment rate would be below 7%, instead of above 8%. That assumes several million more Americans would have joined the workforce. If the current anemic labor force were unchanged, those 6.5 million jobs would drive unemployment to 4%.

GDP growth: The Obama recovery has also performed far worse than average when it comes to GDP growth. After 11 quarters, the economy is still only 6.8% bigger than it was when the recession ended. In contrast, GDP was 16% bigger, on average, by this point in the previous 10 recoveries, the Minneapolis Fed data show.

The current recovery is so slow, in fact, that it just barely beats GDP growth 11 quarters after the 1980 recession ended — even though there was the intervening long and painful 1981-82 recession. And unless GDP shoots up in Q2, the current recovery will soon be the absolute worst since the Great Depression.

Had the Obama recovery tracked the average GDP growth in the 10 previous recoveries, the economy would be almost $1.2 trillion bigger today.

Incomes: By the third year of the past five recoveries, real median household incomes climbed an average 2.8%, according to the Census Bureau, which only has household income data back to 1967.

But in the current recovery, real household incomes dropped 5.4% during the recovery, according to Sentier Research, which compiles a monthly household income index using Census data.

"Unlike previous recoveries, we actually saw household incomes drop faster during the recovery than they did during the recession itself," said Gordon Green, who co-founded Sentier.

Deficits: The current recovery also doesn't stack up well when it comes to annual federal deficits. By this point in previous recoveries, deficits were running an average 2.2% of GDP. This year, they're expected to be 7.6%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Here's another way to look at it: If the deficit-to-GDP ratio matched the average of the previous recoveries, it would be around $341 billion, instead of $1.2 trillion.

National debt: Although Obama claims that he's cleaning up after the "wild debts" Republicans ran up, the national debt has climbed much faster during Obama's economic recovery than the typical recovery in the past.

On average, federal debt climbed 9.5% in the first three years of those recoveries, after adjusting for inflation. Under Obama, debt has climbed $4 trillion since the recovery started, a 28% increase in real terms.

So what explains today's historically poor economic recovery?

Obama routinely blames the deep recession. The problem is that, historically, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery has been.

Others have argued that recoveries from financial crises produce sluggish recoveries. However, a paper published by the Atlanta Fed concluded that U.S. history provides "no support" for linking the current mediocre recovery "with the financial crisis of 2007—2008."

And there are those who argue that the stimulus was insufficient. But that's hard to believe, too, since spending has averaged more than 24% of GDP over the past three years, and deficits averaged 9.3% — higher levels than at any time since World War II.

Obama most recently has argued that Republicans are thwarting the recovery.

"We've got too many of my dear Republican friends in Congress that have been standing in the way of some steps that we could take that would make a difference at the moment," Obama said last week.

But Obama got everything he wanted in terms of economic policy his first two years in office, when he had solid Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, including a massive stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, mortgage aid, Wall Street reform, ObamaCare and so on.

But even Democratic support for Obama's recent economic proposals has been lukewarm. Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., for example, said that he had concerns "about the level of spending that President Obama proposed," after Obama outlined a new stimulus plan last fall.

Meanwhile Republicans say they've passed 30 jobs-related bills in the House since 2011 that have been held up in the Senate. One that did get through — the JOBS Act, which eased some financial regulatory burdens on small companies — was sponsored by Republicans, and opposed by more than 60 Democrats in the House and Senate.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: tonto who wrote (133939)5/30/2012 10:27:01 PM
From: Paul V.1 Recommendation   of 156324
 
tonto, Huh? That would be the exception. Which ones charge that much?

With
state universities charging $18,000 in annual tuition alone,


I was told by an attorney friend of mine that his daughter's annual tuition this year was $18,000. Additionally, they had the expense of books. Fortunately, his daughter lives at home in Jefferson City, MO. and only has a 30 mile trip one way. St. Louis University I am told is around $25-30 K and Washington U. around $35 - $40 K annually.


Question: Who would want to go to college and get a degree in the Arts or teaching which pays so little with the possibility of paying back a potential of $72 - 160 K in student loans for tuition and board? Unless they go into engineering or its equivalent pay jobs who would want to go into education and have to deal with multi kids in the class rooms, especially, if the parents and school districts do not have high expectation in learning.


The old expression: We get the quality of products and education that we are willing to pay for. Many high school students would be making a better choice by getting a technical school education or trade. Times have sure change from the time I had a tuition of $600 in the sixties. But, then my beginning salary was $4,500 annually.


My problem is the number is the students who drop out of high school and college and have to compete in a global market with potential employees from other countries. I even understand that the armed forces have strict test for entry into the various branches. It appears that we are getting a society of the "Haves vs Have Nots." What happens when there is a larger population of "have nots than haves," a revolution!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: joefromspringfield who wrote (134005)5/30/2012 10:45:50 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations   of 156324
 
Artur Davis, former prominent Obama backer, leaves Democratic Party

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-artur-davis-former-prominent-obama-backer-leaves-democratic-party-20120530,0,269770.story latimes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133958)5/30/2012 10:47:56 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations   of 156324
 

By Morgan Little May 30, 2012, 12:35 p.m.



Artur Davis, one of Obama’s earliest supporters and a former co-chairman for his presidential campaign, announced Tuesday that he was leaving the Democratic Party for good.

In a post published Tuesday on his website, Davis was vague about his future political endeavors, but declared: “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican. And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.”

Davis, who represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011, was notably the first member of Congress outside of Illinois to endorse then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. And it was Davis who seconded the official nomination of Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

PHOTOS: The 2012 Medal of Freedom recipients

Along with making hints at the future, Davis reflected on his experiences as a Democrat, and condemned the path he believes the party is taking.

Renouncing the party “is no light decision on my part,” he wrote. “Cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another.”

But “wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” he said.

“On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”

Given Davis’ previous stances on pivotal Obama policies, his departure from the party can’t be too much of a surprise. Davis was the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obama’s healthcare reform legislation in 2010. He also ran a relatively conservative campaign for the governorship of Alabama in 2010, but failed to win a primary battle against then-Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, losing by a margin of 25 percentage points. After the loss, Davis declared he would no longer seek public office.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign has heralded Davis’ retreat from the Democratic Party as evidence of “mounting opposition among Democrats to President Obama’s campaign message and tactics,” in a release sent out Wednesday.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: calgal5/30/2012 11:05:05 PM
1 Recommendation   of 156324
 
Read Replies (1) of 73172
Trumped By ROSS DOUTHATIn the world of pious baloney that is modern presidential politics, Mitt Romney’s campaign has distinguished itself by being weirdly, even endearingly honest about its political calculations. Throughout the presidential selection process, the Romney camp has repeatedly pulled back the curtain of highmindedness to acknowledge more cynical realities.

This habit starts at the top. Think of Romney’s famous debate explanation for why he fired a landscaping company after learning they were employing illegal immigrants (“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals!”), or his attempts later in the primary season to defend delaying the release of his tax forms, which emphasized the hay that Democrats might make with them rather than any principled reason for non-disclosure. But it extends down the chain of command as well. The description of the general election’s arrival by Eric Fehrnstrom, a key Romney adviser, as an “etch-a-sketch” moment, in which the slate of base-pandering primary season positions could be shaken clean, was unusually dunderheaded precisely because it was so unusually honest, saying out loud what most campaign operatives would only say behind closed doors.

The same thing happened Tuesday, after Donald Trump used the occasion of a joint fundraiser with the Republican nominee to embarrass Romney with a burst of “birther” nonsense about President Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the presidency. Responding to the inevitable questions about Trump’s paranoid pose, Romney issued an anodyne bit of evasive politician-speak — “You know I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in” – but then followed it up with a characteristic Romney-ism: “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

I need to get 50.1 percent or more. Most politicians no doubt sigh inside and think pretty much exactly this when they’re embarrassed by a crank whose unqualified support (and with it, the support of other cranks, perhaps in crucial swing states) they feel they need. But Romney can’t help himself: He comes right out and says it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: calgal who wrote (134017)5/30/2012 11:10:49 PM
From: calgal   of 156324
 
May 24, 2012, 10:08 pm What Romney Should Do About Immigration By C. STEWART VERDERY, JR.
Earlier this month, asked about Mitt Romney’s immigration policy, Bettina Inclan, the director of Hispanic outreach for the Republican National Committee, stumbled into the remark that “he’s still deciding what his position on immigration is.” While the campaign distanced itself from the gaffe immediately, the comment was actually good advice, even if unintentional.

During a lengthy primary season, Romney’s effective use of base politics on immigration was a key part of his victory, especially in snuffing out Rick Perry’s potential ascent. But after those strategic attacks, which included Romney’s awkward “self-deportation” plan for illegal aliens, Romney must execute a creative pivot to the middle to attract moderate voters, especially Hispanic moderates. In an election that looks to be razor-close, how effectively Romney recaptures turf in the immigration debate could decide swing states like Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Looking longer-term, a President Romney would have to find a solution to the immigration issue — a social crisis that has eluded political consensus for two decades — if he wanted to save his party from slow-fuse political suicide.

The immigration wars since 9/11 have left Republicans searching for a formula that allows candidates to survive litmus tests from the right — they must oppose any legalization for lawbreakers — while at the same time heeding the calls from party strategists and business interests to make our wildly outdated immigration policies reflect the realities of the modern international world.


Mary Altaffer/Associated PressMitt Romney and Latino Coalition chairman Hector Barreto Jr., left, at the Latino Coalition’s 2012 Small Business Summit on Wednesday in Washington.
Romney dedicated much of the speech he gave to the Latino Coalition earlier this week to education, but here are five policy announcements — of varying degrees of political controversy — that Romney should wrap into a high-minded address on immigration and competitiveness that would capture the middle ground. While the details are important, the tone would be, too – most Americans are weary of bombastic talk radio rhetoric on this issue and are looking for thoughtful, bold leadership.

High-skilled immigration: Romney has already endorsed proposals that would allow more highly skilled scientists to enter the United States under temporary visas and to allow foreign students educated here to receive green cards to allow them to stay here and work. However, these proposals have been blocked in Congress by proponents of a broad amnesty that is a non-starter with most Congressional Republicans. Romney should demand passage of the high-skilled agenda before the graduation of the class of 2013 next spring produces another crop of international leaders, educated here in America, needlessly forced to return home to compete against us. If you graduate with an engineering degree from Stanford, we should staple a green card to your diploma.

Temporary travel: President Obama has seized travel as a means to create jobs in the service sector. He released a national strategy to cut visa wait times and endorsed an expanded list of countries from which tourists and business travelers can come to the United States without a full-fledged visa interview. Romney should build on these goals by promising to expand access to the United States to job creators by allowing visa interviews by videoconference and creating fast-track consideration for businessmen and women looking to purchase American goods, attend American trade shows, or purchase American medical services.

“Good Neighbor” visa: Romney opposes the Democratic version of the Dream Act, which would provide legal status and citizenship to those who arrived in the United States as children. What he needs to find instead is a class of immigrants whose continuing contributions to society are worth protecting. He should propose a new visa category of unlimited duration that allows “good neighbors” to remain in the United States without gaining any special advantage over those who have obeyed the law while seeking to become citizens. This “good neighbors” group would include individuals with a clean criminal record working in the military, in law enforcement, or as a first responder, people who are running businesses with at least 10 employees, or serving as clergy members or teachers. Hundreds of thousands of our neighbors in this “white hat” group are viewed sympathetically by all but the fringes of the American electorate. This would allow Romney to base his immigration policy on a person’s good behavior and contributions to society, rather than the circumstances of his or her arrival. Even those seeking a broader amnesty might see some merit in showing Americans the benefits of recognizing the contributions of immigrants who broke the rules to get here.

Enforcement: Romney has pretty much endorsed a kitchen sink approach to enforcement, but budget realities may complicate his ability to make major additional investments. It is clear that the most cost effective enforcement activity is to concentrate on criminal aliens via the Secure Communities fingerprint program and to implement new employer enforcement checks under the E-Verify program (in tandem with the Good Neighbor program). Even as President Obama has increased deportations, the undeniable truth is that mandating workplace checks is the only effective long-term approach to turning off the jobs magnet attracting illegal labor to this country.

“American Dream” constitutional amendment: The antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires the president to be born on American soil should be repealed. In becoming the first Western democracy to elect a racial minority to the highest office in the land in 2008, the United States once again demonstrated its “melting pot” quality to the world. Allowing any United States citizen, no matter where he or she was physically born, to run for president would send a similar signal that Americans care most about a person’s ideas and character, not race and origin. This goal would also put an appropriate and necessary end to the distraction of the Obama “birther” debate that has captured a sliver of the far right’s attention – most Republicans and moderate voters would embrace this “American Dream” proposal as a way to demonstrate their support of legal immigrants.

Wrapping these five policy announcements into a broader speech about how the United States needs the best talent possible to compete internationally would mesh well with Romney’s broader economic game plan. More urgently, it would reposition Romney for the general election fight by showing a different attitude on immigration and diversity issues. Getting out in front of the issue would also allow him to escape the current legislative debate over fine print of the Dream Act.



Related
  • Room for Debate: Securing the Hispanic Vote »
  • Taking Note: Shhh, Don’t Mention Immigration »


  • To be sure, wading into the immigration battle brings risk of attack from the right and from members of Congress who can coast to re-election in safe districts without worrying about demographic changes that affect national elections. However, unless Romney chooses to unveil a new immigration policy, the election returns coming in from states like Nevada, Colorado and Virginia on Nov. 6 may make this the first presidential election where the immigration issue denied the Republicans a victory well within their grasp.

    C. Stewart Verdery Jr. served as lead immigration adviser for the 2008 presidential campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani and was assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security from 2003-2005.


    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.