Obama: Four more years of economic decay.

Look at Barack Obama's economic policies at:
www.barackobama.com...

The federal debt is the number one economic problem our nation is facing. The mortgage mess would have been fixable if the government had 10 trillion in savings (from our nations economic success) rather than debt. Obama does not even mention federal debt in his economic plan. He talks about surpluses but never about reducing our debt.

A man who does not understand our problems cannot understand how to fix those problems.

Then maybe the Republicans should not have increased the size of our government, weakened our Constitution with the Patriot act, and run up the deficit the way they did.

You are quite right we are in for four more hard years. Not even a magician could turn that mess around instantly.

Blaming it on Obama before he even takes office is ridiculous.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


The dems are just as guilty the patriot act passed with only one person opposing it it. Guess who that one person was.

Second, Obama campaigned that he was going to fix this mess and hope change hope change, so he better make it better that is what he promised everybody.

Don't get all in a ruffle because he is in over his head. The people that didn't vote for him knew it, but he was able to deceive and lie his was to the top.

He doesn't care about the national budget if he did he wouldn't try to expand the federal government even more.

Welcome to reality.

I dont need a welcome to reality.

I am realistic enough to know that "hope and change" do not equal a miracle.

I think you should extend your invitation to reality to anyone, of any party, that thinks anyone save God could turn this mess around on a dime.

I am willing to work for my future. I am willing to pay for it. Are you?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I'm more than willing and already do. But Obama promised the world and he does not intend to fix the mess we are in.

Also, this isn't my reality this is the reality.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

Why is everyone so concerned with Obama? He is only a politician, only one person. People are putting way to much emphasis on the presidency, btw. I mean really the potus can not make laws, or pass laws. Can not single handedly raise or lower taxes, or start or end a war. So what is the big deal? It will be business as usual, no real change for a long time (if ever). What president has ever made significant and lasting changes to the status quo of the United States of America?

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


So just out of curiosity lets turn the tables.
If McCain had been the President Elect how would your thread differ?
McCain made over extended promises on the campaign trail, McCain didn't even bother to acknowledge there is a financial problem until tshtf.
Ronald McDonald could have been elected and we would still have an over promised under funded battle on our hands.
So I ask you, what is your point?

he federal debt is the number one economic problem our nation is facing. The mortgage mess would have been fixable if the government had 10 trillion in savings (from our nations economic success) rather than debt. Obama does not even mention federal debt in his economic plan. He talks about surpluses but never about reducing our debt.

How exactly do you think we reduce debt??? Because if you have deficits, like our record 400 billion for the next year, you only add to the debt. The only way to pay down the debt is... SURPLUSES. In fact that's why they turned off the debt clock when Bill Clinton was in office because he gave Bush a 800 billion dollar surplus. And with that he could have paid off our debt by 2006 or 2007 if it had stayed that. But in fact he had deficits, which turned the debt clock back on and added to the debt. Now on to this idea of whoever you think was the only person opposing the patriot act.


I know Senator Russ Feingold didn't vote the patriot act in 2001. And
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Didn't vote for the 2006 version, and for the 2006 version 124 Dems voted against renewal with 16 republicans, democrats didn't have power then. While in the 2001 version 3 republicans and 62 democrats voted against the patriot act. clerk.house.gov...

In fact, in case you ddin't remember or didn't care to check. Republicans and Democrats both held opposition to 2001, and removed a lot of the more questionable powers that the patriot act had given. Yet over the night Bush administrations officials, John Bolton, ensured the things removed were put back in over night. Since it was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks, overwhelming support WAS A GIVEN.
As for the 2006 version, the renewal of that was kicked around the house and senate for almost 2 years because DEMOCRATS either kept fillerbusting it or would remove provisions. The only way it got passed in fact is before house and senate representatives left to go either campaign or downtime the EXECUTIVE branch trumped up terrorist warnings and attacks saying if they didn't pass the patriot act it would practically be the end of the UNITED STATES.

So as you see, there wasn't 1 person opposing the patriot act. I'm tired of people throwing facts around here that arn't true.

reply to post by SEEWHATUDO


What about McCain, I didn't support him either. Although McCain's economic plan might have not fixed the mess it wouldn't have made it as bad.

As far as Obama being only one man it takes congress to enact the laws, usually the way it works is congress passes what the president wants done no problems. Seeing how the dems have the majority a lot of what he wants done will go through with no problems.
Just wait and see.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am willing to work for my future. I am willing to pay for it. Are you?

Is that working and paying for your future or working and paying for the debt and expense of the future that a bunch of self-righteous thieves and totalitarians have created for you?

Because I dont feel like being thrown in jail or shot to death I am working and paying for the latter. It would be nice to work and pay for my future for once. I was born into government servitude and will most likely die in it. If you're so special you can somehow work and live free of the guns and jails and property theft of government I would like to know what your secret is. If it's just looking the other way, pretending it isnt happening, rationalizing it all as "good for you" or just simple compliance then dont bother sharing. Just know that you're delusional when you say you are working for your future.

Originally posted by red 5
What president has ever made significant and lasting changes to the status quo of the United States of America?

President George Bush in 2003 declared war in Iraq, having a big long-term economic and social impact on every citizen.

President Bill Clinton during his term failed to save up the two trillion needed for the obvious up-coming downturn. Instead he blew off our money and built a trillion in debts.

President Woodrow Wilson, in 1912, had a gigantic and long-lasting effect on our economy when he signed over our money supply into the hands of a secretive society of bankers.

I believe that presidents regularly make decisions with long term impact on America. Nearly 100% of those decisions are bad and hurt us. That is why Ron Paul votes no to the vast majority of legislation. Because the vast majority of it is bad and it hurts us.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Is that working and paying for your future or working and paying for the debt and expense of the future that a bunch of self-righteous thieves and totalitarians have created for you?

I am doing both. I am working and paying for my future, and for the debt and expenses that those I do not agree with have created for this country.

I am a member of a society. When my society votes for people that run this country into the ground, I am also responsible. Yes, I have only one vote. But I have to ask myself, did I do everything I could to prevent it? Did I knock on doors? Did I mobilize my community? Did I create and gain signatures for petitions? If I did not, then I am as much responsible as anyone else, and I shoulder that responsibility without whining.

I also use it as a lesson for the future. Now I do knock on doors, and mobilize my community, and sign and generate petitions. The reason our government is broken is OUR fault, not only the fault of some politicians. We are the ones who would rather watch TV than get out, get active, and get involved as a community and MAKE this work for us.

Our founding leaders did not intend for us to sit idly by, and get off our butts every four years, they intended for us to participate and make this happen. We the people have been lax, and apathetic, and we have been reserving our energy for fighting each other rather than fighting to make our own country great, united as a people.

That is OUR responsibility. Even when I had a president I did not like, I knew we had the president we deserved. As a nation. He reflected our own apathy, our own disenfranchisement, our own actions from fear rather than courage.

Obama may not solve all of our countries problems. They are many, and his time is short. However in the movement behind Obama I see hope. I see a people who have long been sitting on the couch watching "dancing with the stars," getting off their asses and trying to make a change. Obama represents the hope and the willingness of the people to make a change, he is not the sole agent FOR change.

How well this next four years goes is up to US, not up to him. Do we pull together and dig ourselves out of this mess that is ultimately of our own creation? Or do we sit around and whine and play the victim because we find ourselves here?

I vote for the former, not the latter. I would have felt the same had McCain won. No matter who wins, it is up to us, the people to ensure change. It is up to us, the people to make our government work for us. I have hope. I want change. I know freedom isnt free, or easy.

Thats why I am willing to work for and pay for not only my own future, but the future of the country I love.

Originally posted by djpaec
How exactly do you think we reduce debt??? Because if you have deficits, like our record 400 billion for the next year, you only add to the debt. The only way to pay down the debt is... SURPLUSES.

Well, no. The way you pay down debt is by paying it down. What a surplus or deficit mean is that the budget is not balanced. So go ahead and distract yourself with that jargon if you want but Clinton was a bad president because he gave us more federal debt during the greatest economic windfall in the history of the world. It would have been appropriate to save up two trillion for the obvious upcoming downturn at the time.

Under Clinton, we were given 1 TRILLION more in federal debt, as can be seen by the following table.
www.treasurydirect.gov...

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest


Well, considering McCain is not an economic pro, I don't believe anyone made an unwise choice by picking Obama.

With that in mind, presidents cannot be expected to be experts on everything. That is why cabinets were set up.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


There were at least three choices on the ballot in every state or almost every state, so people made a very foolish choice by voting for Obama. My ballot had four other choices, plus a spot to write some one in.

I wish on ATS where people are far smarter than normal(even if a bit eccentric), they would know better than to support the two-party monopoly.

reply to post by truthquest


No matter who was to be president Obama or McCain our nation is already in deep crap.

So do not blame the new president for something that took more than two decades to plan and eight years to execute.

Regardless of who is the president the way things are run in our government is going to collapse our economy no matter what.

reply to post by truthquest


Depends on whether you wanted to vote for a candidate that actually had a chance to win or not.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by truthquest

 

Depends on whether you wanted to vote for a candidate that actually had a chance to win or not.

Please adopt a sense of realism. Realistically, you are not going to go to the polling booth and change the outcome of an election. Your vote will rarely if ever do that. In fact even if you were in a small town you would not expect your vote to change the outcome of the election. Your idea is that you are going to the polls and are going to change the election. Wrong.

You are voting to express who the best candidate is according to your opinion. You are voting to participate in democracy. That is what democracy is about. You can either go to the polls foolishly trying to change the outcome by voting for a terrible candidate because "he can win" or you can go to the polls and participate in democracy as intended to voice your support for who you believe the best candidate is.

Our founders did not like the idea of political parties and I can easily see why now. Not only do they cause people into the group think that you are part of, but this group think mindset you have gives really bad people a really good chance to win, and really good people a really bad chance to win.

If you really think a candidate is bad for the country I have to wonder about the morals of voting for such a person. It would be far more appropriate to not vote or write in "no confidence" in the write-in line would it not? And between the two, it is clearly far more appropriate to simply go to the polls and express no confidence, rather than not going to the polls and apparently expressing that you don't care about democracy. It is very odd to me that you think you are making "more difference" voting for a bad candidate who can win and thereby support a monopoly by which lesser known but stronger minded candidates have no chance. You are basically casting a vote for a candidate named "grant monopoly to populist charming candidates".

It is very odd to me that you like the idea of supporting an atmosphere where Goliath is only allowed to fight another Goliath and not only is David not invited but you are considered "useless" if you root for David. You would think America would love the David vs. Goliath idea of all places. Sadly, it does not. Personally, I'll continue to vote for David until my death because Goliath is an awful person and David may be small but David is a good person and yes he can win when people start opening their eyes and voting for the best candidate instead of voting for terrible candidates "because they can win". By not telling the government who the best candidate is at the election booth you are voting against democracy and voting for political monopoly. Your voting strategy is how to make democracy fail. Your voting strategy is in part why democracy is failing in our country.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by truthquest

 

No matter who was to be president Obama or McCain our nation is already in deep crap.

So do not blame the new president for something that took more than two decades to plan and eight years to execute.

Regardless of who is the president the way things are run in our government is going to collapse our economy no matter what.

I'm not blaming Obama for causing the problem. I'm blaming Obama for not seeing the problem.

No, that is not relevant that "No matter who is president our government will collapse the economy". We need a leader in place who can put the best solution in place after the likely collapse of the dollar. Clearly someone who does not even see it coming is not a leader who we should be voting for to solve the coming likely collapse. Either that or he is intentionally hiding the fact that he sees a dollar collapse, which also means he deserved no votes because he is hiding that he sees it and is not telling us about it.

reply to post by truthquest


That's an absolutely ludicrous statement. While one vote may not decide many elections, the mindset of voting does. If I had cast my vote for any other candidate, it would have been wasted because realistically they had no chance.

However, realistically Obama and McCain had a chance. Now if others voted for candidates besides Obama and McCain, then we could have a conversation.

I like Ron Paul at the beginning of the election - by the way.