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.

 

What if things improve under Obama?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I dont want any dodgers... I dont want to hear from folks that it will never happen or you think its already happened or what not... just answer my question above and that would be appreciated....


Seems not everyone read any more than the title of your thread.


But to answer your post without dodging the question, I would be very pleased if, by July 4, 2012, the debt decreases "significantly" the markets improve, "Fema camps" are but a twinkle in the hard-core conspiracy theorist's eye, the second amendment is in tact and unemployment is below average... I will be feeling quite smug, to tell the truth.
What you have listed is more than I expect can be done in four years, but I would be thrilled if all that happened.

I suspect there will be noticeable positive changes in health care, the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars", education, government accessibility and transparency and infrastructure.

I expect there will be changes in all these areas. And if there are, I will be satisfied that I voted correctly. If there are NOT changes in these areas, or if the changes are negative, I think we should get a new president after 4 years.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeeveve
He is spending this money to get us out of this mess Bush left behind.

Obama is over spending and the money that he is spending, he's spending on the wrong things. He isn't getting us out of the mess. He's digging the hole deeper.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Its a simple question JPhish. What if things improve under Obama. Will you take back all these things you readily gave into?

Its a simple question that requires an answer. If you really have concern for america and these fear threads that you folks spread and cheer on go beyond ideology then it should be difficult to answer the question.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Why not answer question? I dont want to hear that you personally dont think it wont improve, I want to hear an answer to the question. If things improve as said in OP, if things improve in general, will your opinions change of Obama? Will you reconsider the way you take things in as news? Will you take back on the anti-liberal anti Obama fearmongering messages?

Its a simple question. If all this fear and anti-liberal talk is out of real concern for america, if this goes beyond party lines or ideological lines I dont think the question is all that hard to answer.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
It's a good question.
I once supported Bush, and now I don't. I admitted that I was wrong (at least to myself).

How to measure Obama's success or failure won't be cut and dried.
Many folks blame Bush for destroying the Economy. My belief is that this bursting economic bubble was decades in the making. It involves both of our current dominant political parties.

What I think will happen is that many of Obama's policies will only STABILIZE the patient, with no regard to diagnosing the disease.
THIS stable patient will be paraded around as being CURED, only to relapse a few years later. In worse condition than before.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
people stop running from the question for petes sakes! Its just a question! Will it be the end of your world if america builds herself up again under Obama? Please.. prove to me you have concern for america. Im sure any patriotic american does not wish his or her country to faulter, whatever the government.

And to the other answer as to whether I will change my mind over Obama if things get worse, yes I will. I will put him in just asmuch blame as Bush if things just get worse if he leaves office. He took the job of cleaning up this mess and promised he could, and im going to give him 4years to atleast bring america up into a recovery mode... not expecting him to all of sudden make america become gold in 4years, but I do expect him to get this nation to recover, and yes I will change my mind if things continue to fall.

Now answer my question.... nobody needs to run away from a question. Jeeze its like I ask you folks why not limbaugh be your nominee in 2012 if his the leader of the republican party or if you think he is worthy to debate with public elected officials and you folks run away from that too....answer the question.... it aint ganna bite



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


I agree spacedoubt. I think the best that any administration can do is stabelize this economic situation and you are right, if this is so there will be dems alike who will parade it as a success, which is not such a good idea. If he does bring forth a more stable economy that shows the road to improvement, and no guns have been taken away, nobody been dragged to fema camps, would you change your mind, change your view, take back criticism? Not necessarily asking whether youd change your ideology.. but yea the above.

Who did you vote for following your dissappointment with Bush? Paul im guessing?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by skeeveve
 





What if he didn't spend money? You would crucify him for enjoying the oval office and not doing anything. He is spending this money to get us out of this mess Bush left behind. Remember, the economy nose-dived in October last year.

Well, spending more money than you bring in, is called creating a deficit. Let's see what Alan Greenspan said about deficits in 1966:
www.constitution.org...

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.


Obama made no secret of the fact that he was going to "spread the wealth around". What he meant by that becomes clear. He would equalize "wealth" by destroying it all. Look at his budget.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


yes, in the Nevada caucus. I voted for Paul.
He took second place.

In the General, it was..as they used to say on the game show Hollywood Squares, McCain to block.

Oh, I forgot to answer your other question. I would change my mind, as I did with Bush. There is Freedom in thinking independently!


[edit on 5-3-2009 by spacedoubt]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

if things improve under Obama... if the debt decreases enough to be considered significant... if the markets start improving... if nobody has been sent to "Fema camps" or if there has not been a mass raid on gun owners.... if the unemployment rate sinks to below average... if all of those happen under Obama and a Democratic majority (lets say they remain majority after 2010) will folks here credit Obama with that and give dems their due?


Debt- What number would be considered significant?

Markets- At what point do we consider it improving? 8,000, 10,000????

Obama won't go after guns, Pelosi will if they win in 2010. I am not worried about FEMA camps.

Unemployment below average- I will applaud and credit Obama and Dems for creating jobs.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Well jam realistic as spacedoubt expressed, in a matter of 4years the best we can do is stabelize the economy... bring down unemployment but not below average... well if things look on the recover under Obama.... would you be any different on him? Would be more willing to support him?

For me if things continue to slide by 2012 under Obama, even with the excuse that any administration would have found it hard.... I would put him in trash with Bush because he like any other presidential candidate chose to step up and said they have the solutions.... but im curious to those who hate the guy.. if they will reconsider all these fear threads if things look on the up.... if your AR 15 is still there under your bed... nobody took it away from you... nobody asked for it.. you can still get more AR 15's.... if nobody got dragged into FEMA camps... well jam.... would even consider voting for the man for a second term?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
As bad as this economy is and if he can turn it around in a matter of 4 years, he will have no doubt earned my respect and my vote for 2012.

No dodger here.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



I answered with a yes.

Now answer the question I posed for you.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


I answered it.
But I don't have an Obama Club Membership and I'm feeling really left out. How do I get one?

I fully expect things to get worse before they get better. That's according to Obama, himself.

On the other hand, if, after 4 years, I don't see positive changes that I mentioned in my earlier post, I will vote for someone else.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Here is the reallity.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economic Theory", and huge dept created a false economic boom in America that lasted 20 years. Reaganomics could work if you could trust human beings to do the right think but you cant EVER.

Reagan's failure was to trust the richest and most powerful of us humans to use enormous amounts of cash provided by tax breaks and windfall contracts, funded through America's national dept. Trickle down could work if a computer controlled the profits.

Republicans became more popular due to Reagan s natural leadership ability, and his ability to inspire the public (which is what Obama also has). Reagan was a good man, and what he did helped bring down the Soviet Union and to re inspire Americans to love themselves and America. They also enjoyed the continued dept spending and tax breaks for the wealthy.

Clinton and Gingrich managed to tone some of the debt spending down, but did little to change the tax code.

The wealthy began to run companies on loans. Our checks where not paid by profits, rather we where being paid with debt. The profit was going to the executives and dividends to people who never did anything for the company other than buy stocks. While worker wages stagnated or declined.

Then you have the wealthy not being happy with being rich enough, so they blew the housing market up by buying and selling at higher and higher prices. The problem in this was that the buyers (workers) could no longer afford houses since the wealthy had taken so much of the cash.

What we are left with is people owning houses that are not worth what they cost, paying interest to the wealthy, on a house, that is not worth what it cost. Yes, some wealthy people and banks also got hosed by this bubble.

The insurance industry is a non value added business. They make profits and give the cash away to the executives and stock holders, some of which do nothing for the company. Well when your in the business of insuring loans, and you spent all your profits AND the housing bubble happens, you are left asking tax payers to bail you out.

Instead of non value added for profit insurance, we should have a government loan program for health care, with 0 interest rather than a for profit insurance industry that is corrupt, and drives the prices up with no value added to the medicine. If we can throw money at banks and AIG we could certainly throw some at our sick and dieing. Yes, some people would leave this life with a huge medical dept to the government. Oh well, we are funding loser billion CEO companies to pay millions in bonus fee's for failure we could certainly use our taxes to help the sick and dieing. Interest free government loans would allow the consumer to pick the medicines and providers they wish with a corresponding affordable repayment taken as a increasing tax on the individual. This system would need oversight by elected officials. It would allow competition between medical companies and providers to continue without the added cost of "insurance" that provides 0 value to medicine.

We are left with a decision. Let companies grow so large that their collapse can destroy our nation or let the elected government have more control (Socialism).

I prefer Socialism over a Corporation controlled nation where only the share holders get to vote. Either way We The People have to give control to someone of the things that make us a Nation or we could just go back to the Wild West Days.

Let the elitist wealthy run our socialist nation or let elected officials run our socialist nation?

Obama is searching for the fine line between the two.

So "improve under Obama" does not mean the same thing to everyone. The wealthy wont like it. Many of us won't see much of a difference. The poor without health care, and sad education WILL notice it.

Obama is set to level the playing field. I hope he does. No man on earth's contributions are worth a million a year when we have people starving, sick, uneducated, living in shacks right here in America.

If anyone deserves higher pay it is our nations soldiers whom have had their lives stolen from them, their brains forever altered by trauma of seeing, and knowing death and murder. Not to mention the ones who come back with missing parts and lost friends. Many of which would never ask for more.

Why should a guy on Wall Street doing nothing but using money to make money, have more than a same education level school teacher trying to make our next generations even better?

Yes, things will improve under Obama for those with the perspective of humanity itself being the most valuable or worthwhile thing to improve. This world has enough resources for all of us to live well, have health care, jobs and a good education.

How could things not get better than the last 8 years of waste and death?



[edit on 7-3-2009 by Xeven]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Originally posted by Southern Guardian
if things improve under Obama... if the debt decreases enough to be considered significant... if the markets start improving... if nobody has been sent to "Fema camps" or if there has not been a mass raid on gun owners.... if the unemployment rate sinks to below average... if all of those happen under Obama and a Democratic majority (lets say they remain majority after 2010) will folks here credit Obama with that and give dems their due?


Yes, if all you say truly materializes- though I am highly doubtful of that now.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Will folks admit that the prior threads were little more than fear mongering, that the conspiracy thing was just a stunt by fox news to attract angry Paulers?


No.

The concerns expressed now are NOT fear mongering, but based upon legitimate and very real conditions. We are economically and politically on the edge of the abyss-- perhaps more so than ever before. THAT is something to be appropriately feared.


Moreover, does Obama call the current crisis fear mongering? No.

I wish it were, though.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Will folks here start re-thinking about who they listen to...?


No.

I listen to everyone....and decide for myself. I wish more people did that.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Hypothetically lets say the above happens... will folks here admit they were wrong? Let me give a date to make it easy... 4th July 2012.


See you then......hopefully.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by loam]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well, I haven't participated in the fear threads about Obama. I actually didn't vote this year, didn't get registered in time. However, if I had I would have voted for Obama. My sons and my SO voted for Obama.

Am I concerned over the spending that is going on? Yes. Not so much because he's spending or that he's creating jobs. The spending that has me concerned is the money going to the banks and wall-street. Although I can't blame all of that spending on him, since it was started while Bush was in office.

I certainly do hope that Obama can halt the slide we're in. I hope the can do what he said he was going to do. Although some of the things he want's to do strike me as .... "overly inclusive" .... the way things are right now, just about anything would be an improvement.

Does this mean I'm going to stop with my food storage program? NO
Does this mean I'm going to stop accumulating ammo for our guns? NO
Does this mean I'm going to stop keeping an eye on the way things are going for the protection and well being of my family? HELL NO

Just because I have hope that Obama will be able to stabalize the current economic situation, doesn't mean I'm going to stop preparing, just in case.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You don't get one because you don't meet the requirements.

To get in the club you have to.

1. Have known you was going to vote for Obama before the primaries had concluded.

2. Had voted early for Obama without listening to any debates.

3. Defend blindly any broken promises that have come from him.

This is the biggest and last.

4. Already know you are going to vote for him in the next election no matter what happens in the next 4 years.


Sad to say you do not fill any of these requirements. The Dems really wish they could count on your vote in 4 years, today. But, you have been found to think clearly and with an open mind.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by jd140]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Mostly I think this whole situation is going down the drain. But a suspiscious part of me thinks maybe all this is a setup for Obama to lift us up, and get the american people to put all our trust in him.

Think about it. Lets say we dive into horrible depression over the next two years, and then, oh wait, whats this, 3-4 years from now things are better people are making money, credit unfreezes, consumer spending is up, dow recovers, Oh my god yay Obama saved us!!, oh hallaluah!!

Then BAM!! Thats when the sheeple will agree to anything we wants to do... Like WW!!! or NWO, or at least NAU. Thats when he'll be able to lock it all down. And we'll do whatever he says cuz oh my god he is so wonderful for getting us out of this depression, trust him trust him. Landslide victory in 2012. Then once he is locked in for another 4 years, the true fangs will really start to show...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by lucidwave
 


That's a good conspiracy theory, in my opinion. Very intriguing. That's the one thing about being a strong Obama supporter that many people don't realize. Some of us, even though strongly supporting him, still have doubts. I HAVE to keep a certain level of critical thinking going on, or else I'm not being open-minded. And I can actually see your scenario playing out. It's a great plan, if that's what's going on.


Star for you.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join