Where is the US economy headed?

Here are the congressional votes by party on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, indicating that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the legislation than did Democrats. The numbers indicate those for and against, such as in the first line, 152 Dems (or 61%)voted for, while 96 voted against, compared to 138 Republicans (80%) for and 34 against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
By party
The original House version:[12]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[13]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

okie, That proves to us that Johnson had the influence - even of GOP members of congress - that you criticized him in an earlier post. Did you call him a "power hungry so and so?"

You want it both ways - again?

You have what is commonly known as "foot in mouth disease."

I respectfully disagree with you, because I think the GOP voted for the act not because of LBJ at all. In fact, review history and you will find that Republicans have led the way, starting with Abraham Lincoln. In the modern era, it was Dwight Eisenhower accomplishing the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and of 1960, and it was also Eisenhower that federalized the National Guard in Arkansas to make sure the Democratic governor would allow blacks to attend schools down there.

There are several ways to look at this issue and who you wish to believe, but I would encourage you to break out of your brainwashed Democrat way of thinking and believe real history, which you can find in many places, one being here at the National Black Republicans Association website. I challenge you to read the opinions and evidence of those that do not fit your preconceived biased notions about this, ci.

In the following website, you will not only find good historical evidence of Republicans being at the forefront of civil rights, but you will also find ample evidence of many up and coming conservative blacks within the Republican Party. It may well end up being a black Republican that could become the first great black president. Greatness is not about race, it is about conservatism, and there are some good black conservatives out there.

http://www.nbra.info/

NBRA Chairman Frances Rice with RNC Chairman Michael Steele

What are you trying to prove other than MORE Democrats voted for it than Republicans?

If you would read my post, I proved by posting the link that a higher percentage of the Republicans in Congress voted for the act, than did the Democrats in Congress.

But it was still FEWER than the number of Democrats that voted for it.

You should be cautious that you yourself don't end up suffering the same malady. The real opposition to the Civil Rights Act came from entrenched southern Democrats who, by virtue of seniority held numerous key committee posts and were thereby able to exert control of the Congress out of proportion to their numbers. As Okie's data clearly indicates, the Republicans provided relatively far more support for the legislation than did the Democrats, and this was not a major departure from their previous positions with respect to earlier attempts at enacting such legislation.

What enabled the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the assasination of JFK just months earlier. This put the earlier civil rights struggle and movement in a new light for many Americans, enabling its passage. President Lyndon Johnson certainly deserves a gread deal of credit for his brave and very effective maneuvering in support of this legislation, and it was one of the most successful achievements of his Presidency. However, it wasn't the only significant event in his presidency and most historians put him down as a very mixed figure in the ranking of our Presidents. Between his utterly cynical support for a war he didn't believe in in Vietnam and his loss of public support that led to his withdrawl from the Democrat Primary in 1968. his was a failed presidency by any reasonable set of criteria.

You can call it a failed presidency, but here's what the polls show between the liberals and conservatives.


For liberals, Johnson came in 9th. Not a bad record by my books.

I admit to being no fan of LBJ, but not without reason, and I really do not believe many people would place him in any exceptional class as a president. My parents were FDR Democrats, but they certainly were no fans of LBJ. I think he is remembered as politically savvy, but not in a very good way. He was savvy to his own political power and benefit, but not toward highly admired principles. My opinion is found in a similar statement on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

"He was described by friends, fellow politicians, and historians as motivated throughout his life by an exceptional lust for power and control. As Johnson's biographer Robert Caro observes, "Johnson's ambition was uncommon—in the degree to which it was unencumbered by even the slightest excess weight of ideology, of philosophy, of principles, of beliefs.""

That's comical; all presidents "lust for power." That's what being president of the US means. You can't even get that straight! You are a big joke.

I think that we may be on this track

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXg70qJQ6O0

True, most politicians like the feeling of power, but you apparently did not comprehend very well what I posted. It said LBJ had an "exceptional lust for power and control," and that "his ambition was uncommon—in the degree to which it was unencumbered by even the slightest excess weight of ideology, of philosophy, of principles, of beliefs.""

The point was that LBJ's desire for power was uncommonly high, to the point that his ideology, philosophy, principles, and beliefs were negotiable. I am not saying he was unique in that respect, but I am saying he does not belong in the league of true statesmen or great presidents.

Do you get all your opinions from polls?

I note that this one involved almost 4 times as many "liberals" as "conservatives". That skews the sample accuracy of the two measurements rather considerably. I also note that polls on the same subject vary widely one from the other, and that, in the case of the Poll at hand, concervatives didn't include LBJ in the top ten at all.

I don't know why you are so concerned about my opinion of LBJ, and I have a hard time imagining how you think this kind of stuff could persuade me of anything.

To run for president of the US is always a lust for power that is uncommonly the highest - in this world.

No; I only presented one poll of many that shows how liberals and conservatives have rated presidents. In that poll, democrats rated Johnson pretty high. The Gallup poll also shows Johnson to be rated pretty high, and that includes democrats, republicans, and independents.

I don't try to persuade you on anything, but question how you arrive at opinions that lack support for them. You can argue all you want about accuracy, but that's an argument you need to make with the polling company, not me.

You may also wish to consult some historical and political analytical works, of which there arw many available. How do you account for the Vietnam war and the fact that Johnson had lost the support of his own party in your evaluation?

I'm not surprised; that war was started on a lie. I read Daniel Ellsberg's book, and he revealed all the lies created from the captain of the ship in the Gulf of Tonkin up to the Secretary of Defense, and the president.

Capitalism hits the fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA

AMERICA’S ECONOMY IS UNDER ATTACK

George Soros and his Democrat Party appear to believe their ends justify their means.

George Soros in his 1995 book, page 145, Soros on Soros, I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

George Soros has owned and directed the Democrat Party since December 2004.

"Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004,"] On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."

Soros … pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.)

George Soros has directed the members of the Democrat party to pass or continue legislation that violates the Constitution of the USA as lawfully amended. George Soros directed the federal government to adopt and/or continue the following such programs.

• Healthcare Reform:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/health-care-providers/center-for-health-solutions/health-care-reform/index.htm?id=USGoogle_hcreform_310&gclid=CKLi6PKDzKUCFUN66wodrlBmlA
National health reform is here. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the reconciliation bill are law. Together, they will trigger sweeping changes and disruptions — some rather quickly and some over many years.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026733_health_health_care_healthcare.html
What's really in Obama's health care reform bill? Almost no one knows, and here's why: It's 1,017 pages long and written in an alien form of bureaucratic English that can barely be decoded by earthlings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
• TARP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program
The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. …
• Stimulus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.
• Fannie Mae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_may
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (OTCBB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was set up as a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), ..
• Freddie Mac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC), is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in the Tyson's Corner CDP in unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia. …

The Constitution does not delegate power to the federal government to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not and do not earn it. The Constitution does specify that the federal government can take a person’s property to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Article I. Section 8 (1789)
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; …

George Soros’s Democrat Party adoption and and/or continuation of the previously listed programs (Healthcare Reform, TARP, Stimulus, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) , are evidence that they are adhering to the enemies of the USA, giving them aid and comfort, and arethereby guilty of committing treason.

Article III (1791)
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The Constitution of the USA as amended is part of the supreme law of the land.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

George Soros has declared his intention to create a new world order through the suppression of the U.S. economy.

I think our economy will worsen, unemployment will increase, prices for goods will increase...
I really don't see things turning around until months after Obama is out of office in 2012.