It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is going to watch the State of the Union tonight? Who is actually expecting a difference?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: yesyesyes

There is a difference between jobs which produce something and jobs that simply eat off other people (for example: the service industry sector, which is currently about 80 percent of this nations jobs) Creating unemployment prior to having jobs to fill the gap left by job loss is not a good thing.

Right now, solar energy is prohibitively expensive, running about 4 dollars a watt hour verses the 12 cents per watt hour of regular electricity, so we have a very long road before we get to various alternative energy forms that the masses can afford, in any form. Until we can have affordable alternative energy that is just as efficient as what we are currently utilizing, then oil it is. Plus, we use oil for much more than simply fuel, we use it in plastics and everything else.

Plus, in a free market economy, you cannot force people to manufacture nor buy, what you want them to. They will manufacture what people will be able to buy, and they will buy what they can afford.


By my perspective, Oil is the nearly the biggest "eat off other people" next to insurance.

The only reason solar is still expensive is because people like (------) are so squarely in the tank to defend the oil industry. And, solar has actually cut our old carbon based bills by half. How do you explain that outcome?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush being an idiot doesn't absolve Obamas #ty foreign policy. He inherited a problem and made it far worse with his policy to arm militants and topple governments without a plan, creating the same inevitable power vacuum it always does.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




Lol

I worked in mortgage industry and subprime were being pedaled long before 2007. Bush's regulators looked the other way the entire time. SMD




In Bush's last month's in office America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, real successful!



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.


I did not ignore the facts. Obama had two choices, let an entire industry fail and lose millions of jobs, OR take action which he did. It was a choice to save jobs and he made that choice, you make it sound like he did it for fun.

Seriously, you must be unreasonable if you are ignoring the extenuating circumstances.

Do you think he should of let the industry we pioneered, fail completely?
edit on 12-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




Lol

I worked in mortgage industry and subprime were being pedaled long before 2007. Bush's regulators looked the other way the entire time. SMD

In Bush's last month's in office America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, real successful!



And the GOP was trying to fix the sub-primes from 2000 to 2006, but every time they tried the Democrat minority managed to filibuster or in other ways prevent the ideas from moving forward. Frank and Dodd worked overtime to convince both sides 'All is well! Fannie and Freddie are solid! Nothing to fear!'



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
I hope Guiness was there ...

to document the largest gathering oh Shyte in US history....

I hope that the folks in the country realize the trouble we are in, regards to those who represent US.....

How long will we be snowballed, patted on the head, served keywords to make us feel that we are being represented?

The only part of the broadcast that I saw, that wish I was privy, was the jokes VP Biden was telling the Speaker Ryan, when waiting for the POTUS to show up...

Left or Right... we are all screwed with the folks we have partying in DC on our dime.....



Bold above added by me.

This is the REAL problem. No matter if the man up there had an R or a D next to his name the result is the same.
We are screwed.

What an absurd, revolting, illusion our Republic has become



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.


I did not ignore the facts. Obama had two choices, let an entire industry fail and lose millions of jobs, OR take action which he did. It was a choice to save jobs and he made that choice, you make it sound like he did it for fun.

Seriously, you must be unreasonable if you are ignoring the extenuating circumstances.

Do you think he should of let the industry we pioneered, fail completely?


If the business plan was crap, yes.

No business is too big to fail. It may be too big to liquidate overnight. But there are more auto businesses in America besides the 'Big 3.' Those companies could have sold out more shares, divested models, sold plants, filed bankruptcy and renogatiated their union contracts. All sorts of options.

But no, the better choice was to bail them out and tell them it's okay to ignore the laws of economics and business. And put Americans on the hook for a company's mistakes. Thanks Obama.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.


I did not ignore the facts. Obama had two choices, let an entire industry fail and lose millions of jobs, OR take action which he did. It was a choice to save jobs and he made that choice, you make it sound like he did it for fun.

Seriously, you must be unreasonable if you are ignoring the extenuating circumstances.

Do you think he should of let the industry we pioneered, fail completely?


Bush did the same thing with the banks and I thought that was BS also. It's possible to ignore your political bias and judge things at face value. Its kind of ironic you accuse people of a right wing bias when your judgement couldn't be more impeded by your leanings. I do think both should have been allowed to fail to answer your question
edit on 12-1-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




Lol

I worked in mortgage industry and subprime were being pedaled long before 2007. Bush's regulators looked the other way the entire time. SMD

In Bush's last month's in office America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, real successful!



And the GOP was trying to fix the sub-primes from 2000 to 2006, but every time they tried the Democrat minority managed to filibuster or in other ways prevent the ideas from moving forward. Frank and Dodd worked overtime to convince both sides 'All is well! Fannie and Freddie are solid! Nothing to fear!'


The GOP did not try to fix subprime, they invented the entire default swap scheme when the GOP proposed and succeeded to abolish Glass Steagal. Meanwhile the GOP leadership blocked all attempts to REGULATE and create economic firewalls because they are against regulation. Watch the tip of the spear refute your claims





posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

The Republicans at the time were well known RINOS.

And Clinton was in on the scam.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.


I did not ignore the facts. Obama had two choices, let an entire industry fail and lose millions of jobs, OR take action which he did. It was a choice to save jobs and he made that choice, you make it sound like he did it for fun.

Seriously, you must be unreasonable if you are ignoring the extenuating circumstances.

Do you think he should of let the industry we pioneered, fail completely?


Bush did the same thing with the banks and I thought that was BS also. It's possible to ignore your political bias and judge things at face value. Its kind of ironic you accuse people of a right wing bias when your judgement couldn't be more impeded by your leanings. I do think both should have been allowed to fail to answer your question


We disagree on the auto industry, because it would of been a disaster to let that particular industry fail when the economy was on the the brink.

But lets go back to Obama, do you think he would of been responsible to let and entire industry to fail when the economy was already devastated by banks?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: yesyesyes

The Republicans at the time were well known RINOS.

And Clinton was in on the scam.



You know good and well that the GOP is in the tank for private industry. Don't play stupid, it is too transparent



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




Lol

I worked in mortgage industry and subprime were being pedaled long before 2007. Bush's regulators looked the other way the entire time. SMD

In Bush's last month's in office America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, real successful!



And the GOP was trying to fix the sub-primes from 2000 to 2006, but every time they tried the Democrat minority managed to filibuster or in other ways prevent the ideas from moving forward. Frank and Dodd worked overtime to convince both sides 'All is well! Fannie and Freddie are solid! Nothing to fear!'


The GOP did not try to fix subprime, they invented the entire default swap scheme when the GOP proposed and succeeded to abolish Glass Steagal. Meanwhile the GOP leadership blocked all attempts to REGULATE and create economic firewalls because they are against regulation. Watch the tip of the spear refute your claims






Glass Steagal was repealed under Clinton. He said it was "No longer appropriate"
edit on 12-1-2016 by EightTF3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: yesyesyes

The Republicans at the time were well known RINOS.

And Clinton was in on the scam.



You know good and well that the GOP is in the tank for private industry. Don't play stupid, it is too transparent


Both parties are in bed with private industry. The only one playing stupid is you believing one side is above it



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: stosh64

lol

I suppose Bush was better with his invading the wrong country and tanking the entire global economy as he and his policy makers looked the other way.




Bush had unemployment down to 4.4%

Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and shot the whole idea down the drain and triggered the financial collapse.




Lol

I worked in mortgage industry and subprime were being pedaled long before 2007. Bush's regulators looked the other way the entire time. SMD

In Bush's last month's in office America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, real successful!



And the GOP was trying to fix the sub-primes from 2000 to 2006, but every time they tried the Democrat minority managed to filibuster or in other ways prevent the ideas from moving forward. Frank and Dodd worked overtime to convince both sides 'All is well! Fannie and Freddie are solid! Nothing to fear!'


The GOP did not try to fix subprime, they invented the entire default swap scheme when the GOP proposed and succeeded to abolish Glass Steagal. Meanwhile the GOP leadership blocked all attempts to REGULATE and create economic firewalls because they are against regulation. Watch the tip of the spear refute your claims






Glass Steagal was repealed under Clinton. He said it was "No longer appropriate"


Yes, Clinton was a fool, but that does not change the fact that it was written by three Republicans and voted on by the vast majority of the GOP.

The idot Democrats (who voted up) signed on after the negotiated Credit Card privacy regulations into the bill.I have studied it extensively actually.

It was George W regulators who did nothing to enforce any of the remaining regulations that could of slowed the damage.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The presidents speech is soooo vague. I want to hear the words and explanation on what exactly are they going to do. Not some gobble dee gook do gooder speech. Pathetic, absolutely Pathetic. Lets get into all the details up fromt like Trump does.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: EightTF3

I will go anytime with you over facts. But if you are a wing nut, we should just agree to disagree.


Go ahead and shoot. I've never voted republican in my life. I just refuse to vote for Hillary so I don't think I qualify as a wing nut


Ok, There is a lot to cover.

When Obama was elected the US auto industry was teetering on the edge of disappearing, despite the fact that the industry was originally pioneered in America. A Collapse of this industry would have destroyed millions of manufacturing, distribution and maintainence jobs. That DID NOT HAPPEN specifically because the president took action despite political headwinds.

Today domestic production is double what it was 6 years ago.

Here is an article from Forbes magazine


After the best sales year since 2006, the U.S. auto industry is looking forward to a strong 2015, with sales likely to top 17 million units. A better economy, rising consumer confidence and easier access to credit have created ideal market conditions for carmakers and put the 2009 crisis firmly in the rearview mirror.


www.forbes.com...

So you are here saying Obama's policies are crap, please explain how this result is bad?

Lets do this mang


Ignoring the fact that businesses that fail don't deserve a bailout if you want capitalism to work right long term, like the banks. Those companies are now rewarding us saving them by using our crappy trade deals against us. In this case NAFTA, Obama did everything in his power to push another crappy trade deal(TPP) down our throat.


I did not ignore the facts. Obama had two choices, let an entire industry fail and lose millions of jobs, OR take action which he did. It was a choice to save jobs and he made that choice, you make it sound like he did it for fun.

Seriously, you must be unreasonable if you are ignoring the extenuating circumstances.

Do you think he should of let the industry we pioneered, fail completely?


If the business plan was crap, yes.

No business is too big to fail. It may be too big to liquidate overnight. But there are more auto businesses in America besides the 'Big 3.' Those companies could have sold out more shares, divested models, sold plants, filed bankruptcy and renogatiated their union contracts. All sorts of options.

But no, the better choice was to bail them out and tell them it's okay to ignore the laws of economics and business. And put Americans on the hook for a company's mistakes. Thanks Obama.


If that is your position, you are not very prudent and I thank god you are not a policy maker who holds that fates of millions in your hand.

And the auto industry paid the tax payers back with interest, so your gotcha point is absolutely moot.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join