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.

 

Obama Policy: Economy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Cut irrational spending.

I know this is a short response....but,

Like unprovoked unilateral preemptive wars?!?!?!

Seems like pretty irrational spending to me.




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
Like unprovoked unilateral preemptive wars?!?!?!
Seems like pretty irrational spending to me.

Yes and no. Depends on the situation.

Are you talking about Bill Clinton going into Kosovo?
That was unprovoked and unilateral.
It was NOT in the least 'preemptive'.
He was feeling his oats after Monica ... and well ... you know.

Are you talking about Bush43 going into Iraq?
Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement from Gulf War I.
Gulf War I Saddam was the instigator and took over Kuwait.
It was provoked. It may have been unilateral, but so what?
It was NOT preemptive. (at least I don't see preemption)

Unprovoked wars = irrational spending.

Unilateral wars = maybe/maybe not irrational. It depends. Every country has a right to defend itself even if it's unilateral.

Preemptive wars = necessary spending. It would save money in the long run. Like a person taking care of his/her health probably won't have to deal with lung cancer or heart attacks. That's preemptive medicine. Same thing. You'll disagree. But it's the same.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
IRRATIONAL SPENDING that can be cut -

- foreign aid and foreign interference.
- UN dues.
- 'Perks' for the senate and house members.
- BAIL OUTS
- PORK and entitlements.

There are more I'm sure. But that's a good start.
Why raise taxes when these irrational spendings should be cut first.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Below is an example of these arguments .....and how you guys look....



You'll disagree.

Don't put words in to my mouth.



But it's the same.

No, it's not.

Arguing moot points with hu-uh's and blaming Clinton for everything doesn't sit well with independent voters (ask McCain). This is exactly what everyone is saying. Believe us or not, but the scare tactics and bullying of the Republicans is really going to hurt your party in the long run (I know.....you aren't gonna vote McCain...blah blah). The reason America trusts Obama on economics is because they SEE for themselves what the rights brand of economic policies LOOK LIKE.

Their policies make socialism look a whole lot better than continuing down the road we are on. So really, we can thank the republicans for socialism.



[edit on 14-10-2008 by Grafilthy]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
The reason America trusts Obama on economics is because they SEE for themselves what the rights brand of economic policies LOOK LIKE.

Their policies make socialism look a whole lot better than continuing down the road we are on. So really, we can thank the republicans for socialism.



This is true. I am one of those people. Ive witnesses a nation of gluttony that continues to spend recklessly. A nation at peace, that under Reagan began to be a nation at war. Preemptive strike wars and a corporate economy that is being exposed as near criminal, that we the people are now having to save.

In regards to socialism, were moving that way even if we dont say we our.
Democratic Socialism. Everyone loves a government job. Benefits, retirements, standards. Its the free economy that sees people with no insurance, under paid, irregular work hours, and no oversight of abuse in many areas.

Ralph Nader says that the reason Capitalism keeps working, is that Socialism keeps bailing it out. Check this video:



Plain and simple, we trust Obama in his intent, much more then we trust McCain in his concept. Republican Voodoo economics, and the trickle down theory has shown that the rich have taken outrageous risks with that money, the banks have played a dangerous game, and corporations, in their greed have even lied to attract investors.

Thats one brand of economics Im not wanting to see. I agree with the post above this one. Socialism is looking a whole lot better. I prefer to call is Altruism. Good for all of us, and not a select few.

In an interview I once read, it was talking about the abuses in Nigeria. How is it, that a nation rich with oil, has a population that lives on less then a dollar a day. Here is the response.


The causes, not necessarily in order, were, one, colonialism, two, exploitative capitalism and, three, the failure of Nigerian politicians who were often the local collaborators of multinational corporations.

news.bbc.co.uk...

In reflecting on issues and problems in American, we only need to look at a 3rd world nation to see some of the problems that are plaguing our own country.

Nigeria is a rich nation in oil, yet lets her people live in poverty. We have 50 million Americans without health insurance and 34 Million living in poverty. Where are our priorities? From Clinton, to Bush, Nixon to Reagan, how does this happen?

Obama: from health care to the common man, his voice and his heart sees the injustice and the abuse.

Obama is a step towards ending this pattern.

Peace



[edit on 14-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
and how you guys look....

What guys? Those of us voting Constitution Party?


Don't put words in to my mouth.

So you agree with me?


No, it's not.

YES IT IS.


Arguing moot points with hu-uh's and blaming Clinton for everything

I have absolutely no idea what you are TRYING to say.

YOU said irrational spending was 'unprovoked, unilateral, preemptive'.
I gave examples from two wars. One under a dem and one under a reupblican. Very bipartisan of me.

The one under the dem fit your description EXACTLY.
The one under the republican half fit.

Deal with it.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Facing opposition in the Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history. Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money." With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.


Read that over, and over , and over....

This current situation was EXACTLY what Bush was repeatedly warned about when he said he was going to go through with the tax cuts. Yet.....he did it anyways. THEY HAVE BALLOONED OUR NATIONAL DEBT WITH THESE POLICIES.

McCain thinks that the current direction we are going (yes, the same one Bush started us on.) is the right one.

I would like to know when

"THE PEOPLE"

should start expecting to see their money????(Unless of course he just meant "The (rich) People")?


[edit on 15-10-2008 by Grafilthy]



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join