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.

 

New depression

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I hope I'm not repeating anothers post but the last time that this country was in such economic crisis and we had dems in the house, senate, and whitehouse, was herbert hoover.
With Obamas new tax hikes on capital gains and anyone making over 5.95 an hour (sic) is he just setting the stage for MORE government takeover?




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Hate to burst your bubble, not really, Herbert Hoover was in fact a Republican. Not only that Republicans had a majority also books.google.com... lJqohObedjqaHZf-N2Jr0w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result . Do your reasearch before you make allegations. So actually Bush's years can be seen as the lead up to our recession. Because the republicans had a majority during his years. Not only that we just had our first negative growth, not suprising with how many jobs we have lost this year, so the next two quarters need to be negative growth also for a recession.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Herbert Hoover, a republican, was in office and while he tried to take some action, it was too little, too late. FDR was elected and established the "New Deal." This was a gaggle of government programs that resulted in the WPA, the CCC, and a host of other projects. Some of the projects involeved sending photographers around the country recording the depression. It also involved sending muscians like Woody Guthrie, around to right songs about some of the projects that were government funded.
I figure Obama will use a similar approach to put people to work. We need new bridges and some of our roads are getting in pretty bad shape. He'll also probably fund a "Manhattan Project" to work toward alternative energy projects.
Of course, this is just speculation on my part, but throwing money at a problem seems to be what the democrats seem to do.
I'm sorry he was elected. I don't think he has the experience to do the job, but I will give him an honest chance. I will support any programs he comes up with that I can support without going against my principles. If he has somethng that I cannot agree with, I can write, call, email and fax the White House, and the Congress and make my displeasure known. If enough of us do this, and do it often enough, we can start a peaceful grassroots revolution, one that will keep this country great.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by djpaec
 


my bad, but hoovers policies were definitely 'liberal' in that he raised capital gains 28 percent, increased rates for anyone making over (i believe) 100K in an attempt for forstsall the depression. I certainly hope that we don't have several quarters of recession to prove me right. Heck, I'd love to be proven wrong, at this time though, I'm down 13Kin my 401K and don't see improvement. I only make in the 60's but what if Obama decided that I'm one of the rich as well?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
think we could get bush to hide in a hole like saddam for his last 73 days as president?


lol


maybe mccain could keep him company



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
You forget to mention that Hoover had somethign that orginated with him. The Trickle down theory? Esposed by George Bush and John McCain themselves. Try better you're obviously baiting politics with statements like 'everyone over 5.95 will be taxed'. And you're lucky you've only lost 13k I know people that have lost a whole lost more. It was this REPUBLICAN president with his LIBERAL policies towards the markets that got us into this mess. Conservative(I.E. Regulation) policies on the market can stop something like this from happening again. What do you expect to happen when the president runs a deficit for 8 years, gives tax breaks heavily wighted towards the top 1%, starts a war and his response is to 'Go out and shop'. Instead of taking real leadership by the horns and talking about trying to cut back peoples oil usage. O wait that's because his buddies were the ones, through deregulation of the Energy futures market, by proxy using speculators to drive up oil one last time so they could get the cash while the getting was good.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by djpaec
 

rein that vitiol back a bit! I am NOT defending Bush, heck, his concept of a bailout smacks of scocialism, but there is a definite RIGHT way to go and a WRONG way to go. raising taxes ANY TAXES, is just a wrong move to make. We need to keep the current amout of money that we have flowing through all the markets and NOT print more to boulster the economy. 12% inflation is what we saw when Carter was in office, and I don't want to see another repeat of those years either



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Well you said it was Democrats complete control that would percipitate this and I was explaining to you how it was actually Republican Complete control. And yes inflation is coming, but don't forget Ford hit the 11% mark way before Carter. Inflation is gonig to be percipitated by our off the books spending on our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our 400 billion dollar budget deficit, and the fact we just magically printed close to 1.5 trillion dollars just 1 to 2 months ago.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by djpaec
 


so, are you saying its a done deal? That there is no putting the toothpaste back into the tube? If we drastically LOWER taxes and give business the incentive to hire more then we might forstall the crisis. As for the war, I can't say that I'm an expert in foreign policy but I can tell you what would have happened if we pulled out of South Korea, Japan, or Europe, ...Vietnam!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
oooh scary socialism! oooh noes! run for the hills!!! this is teh end0rz!!111eleventy!

Please guys, I know some of you went through McCarthyism and are scared of anything even slightly red in hue, but socialism, as the countries in Europe with a much higher standard of living, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, less poverty, less crime, less murders, is not as bad as you seem to think it is.

It's about treating a country as a society, something I thought the US was all about. Or are you not your brother's keeper, just some guy who wants to keep all his money and screw everyone else? Nice.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
oooh scary socialism! oooh noes! run for the hills!!! this is teh end0rz!!111eleventy!

Please guys, I know some of you went through McCarthyism and are scared of anything even slightly red in hue, but socialism, as the countries in Europe with a much higher standard of living, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, less poverty, less crime, less murders, is not as bad as you seem to think it is.

It's about treating a country as a society, something I thought the US was all about. Or are you not your brother's keeper, just some guy who wants to keep all his money and screw everyone else? Nice.


I explained to you why socialism was bad, but here you go keeping at it just as before. You never responded afterwards.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to mention that the socialist countries you speak of are really small countries, and no where near the size of the US. And you keep on with this myth that socialism is the only way to take of your "brother".

Don't you think you having to try and belittle people who don't go along with your view of "socialism is good" is a telling sign of dishonesty?

[edit on 7-11-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 

The fed made 850 billion for the financial market bailout. 80 Billion for AIG. 35 billion for auto makers etc... etc.... etc... And now they're announcing they want another 300 billion. Yes the genie is out of the bottle, we have a LARGE economy takes a while for everything to work through. However I am far from a Economic expert, I have afterall only taken one class in college and one in highschool about it.

Here's how our 2009 Budget Breaks down:
Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security
$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$59.2 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$11.5 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
en.wikipedia.org...

We only took in 2.7 trillion for a 3.1 trillion budget. Meaning at 400 Billion dollar deficit. Since 1.89 trillion is mandatory spending. I can only see having 100 billion cut out of that for defense, it did after all jump up 59 billion 2009 alone(same size as the education department).

I'm not saying I don't see how other mandatory spending could be cut either. I'm saying from how Obama just spoke and what his plans are I don't think he'll be cutting any other mandatory spending. Possibly a cut on social security, medicare, medicaide.Honestly I'm at a loss I don't see where they're gonna get the money for anything without huge budgets cuts and/or tax increases for somebody. What pisses me off is the interest we're paying, that's gone up 50 billion alone since 2006.

You gotta remember 144Billion, which is off the books, a year alone goes to our Occupations.

Edit for source of Budget break down.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join