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 supporters have become silent!

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Without veering this off topic, your comment is wildly inaccurate. Canadians are not flocking to the States for essential services, despite whatever skewed data youve read from teh Fraser Institute.


Ha Ha - - my daughters Canadian in-laws go to AZ - - - just so they can go to Mexico for dental.

Lots of Canadians come to the SW USA - - not so they can use American services - - but Mexican.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by Soldier of God
 


Maybe you should read the whole post.

Not just the first line.

Or practice your reading comprehension.

I never said I agreed with every single thing he's done, I am certainly non-plussed about the wars.

Really, I expect very little from what is generally in our modern era, a figure head, but what I do expect, Barack Hussein Obama has delivered.

Like a personality.

And Grammar.

And an ability to see that there is indeed more than one side of an issue.

Small things like that.


Well the world's going to hell in a handbasket but we've got personality and grammar folks... everything is going to be OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My bad.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy

Did the hope and change turn into nothing indifferent

Why wouldn't it? This is America, indifference is the American Way!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Obama states he is only a one term president, BUT many on this sight are quit, and i want to know why


I support Obama, but I don't feel the need to praise him daily; where as those that dislike him seemingly feel the need to hate on him daily. It's just that simple.


Actually I absolutely LOVE Obama. Didn't like him when he ran but since he's been in office he has:

Renewed Xe's contract for the WPPS program
Expanded the use of military contractors in OIF/OEF theaters by 18%
Increased renditions to 3rd party countries
Kept Guantanamo Bay open for unlawful combatants
Expanded military tribunals for unlawful combatants
Negotiated and closed deals for permanent bases in Iraq
Negotiated for permanent bases in Afghanistan
Invaded and bombed the sovereign nation of Pakistan
Invaded and bombed the sovereign nation of Libya



The above was sarcasm. My point for the mentally challenged is meet the new boss- same as the old boss.

Republicans and Democrats are simply opposite sides of the same bad penny.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by niceguybob
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Sou.. The U.S. is NEVER leaving Iraq in our lifetime.. Read anything you want. We're not leaving.
www.mcclatchydc.com...
First Google's are Fox and Huffington so I wanted to be unbiased. I showed that website.


The link above talks about an embassy being built. Maybe your definition of withdrawal is complete removal of any US establishments in Iraq, but that's not how I see it. There will be a complete occupational withdrawal from Iraq, but the political and incognito involvement of the US will obviously not dissappear as well. It's silly to argue that this is "Obama" at work here, the US has technically been involved in Iraqi matters since the 80's, it didn't end after the first Gulf war. The invasion of the gulf war was the US using muscle to get their way. Like or not, regardless of whether Obama is in power or not, there will be a continious US intelligence and political involvement in Iraq and other third and second world countries. It's always been that way. You should really be focusing on the military industrial complex.


It's not about one President.


The OP and other members here, including yourself, appear to make this about Obama. If it's not, be consistent in your arguments.


Obama sucks TOO...


Obama's one in the same, he had a chance to make a different and he failed in my opinion, he continued roughly the same policies at hand, with afew minor changes. But then again, its going to be the same with other presidents forward. We make the mistake of focusing on the whitehouse, there are only a piece of who's dictating the policies in this country.


Don't shoot the messenger for voices getting pissed.


How can you be merely a messenger when you are clearly one of these voices? Doesn't make sense to me, all this "im just a messenger" nonsense on this forum. Either own up to your beliefs, your arguments, or don't make them at all.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i hate to burst peoples bubbles here but outsourcing did not lead to the housing crisis.

the creation of fanny and freddy and dodds and franks over manipluation and the over manipulation of guaranteed government mortgages led to that bubble bursting.


The housing crises occured because banks and other financial institutions got the green light to go lending like crazy, so this is what they did, they decided to loan money to any smuck that walked off the street. The assumption was that the equity of these houses would cover these loans even when customers would defualt in paying them back, but obviously it didn't end up that way. Deregulation of the financial crises was what caused this, fannie and freddy mack facilitated this deregulation.

The financial institutions and banks made choices independently and without government referrely, that had the ability, they were given the green light to lend like crazy, they didn't show restraint, we saw a taste of what the free market system was like. No invisable hand came in to save those who were unfortunate.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Osama, Oooops, I mean Obama HAS SUPPORTERS ???

You don't know who you are messing with HERE, Obama does NOT have supporters !

He is just like any other DemonicRATic politician, he bribes the Unions that setup and service the voting machines.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


BECAUSE GOVERNMENT FORCED THEM TO!

everyone gets a free home that was the deal and all backed by fanny and freedy they own 95% of all us mortagages.

banks are not stupid it was the government they had no risk because they were all government backed.

hence the bailouts the criminals here are the government who created the situtation.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
the republicans have been doing everything they can to make the president look bad, even if it means screwing the american people. republicans have been stopping appointments to critical government positions ever since Obama has been elected. the republicans DO NOT WANT this country to function with Obama as president. it's so blatant, that i personally would like to see republican leadership arrested for sedition and brought to trial.
but it won't happen...and with the right-wing supreme court ruling on allowing corporations (american and foreign) to donate unlimited millions to elections... this might be the last democratic president we see in this country.

my prediction....any type of money going to the poor or middle class to help them out, will be gone in ten years or less, plus corporate taxes will be nill or very little, and the wealthy will be paying little if anything in income taxes, all due to the right-wing republicans.


Are you serious? We already had the last Democrat president. Assuming the "x" means you are 10 Kennedy was a bit before your time so we understand, but what you mean about Obama being the last democratic president,,, I have no idea what you are trying to say.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Obama is better then the prior president. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in american history.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
In the 80's, I had a feeling that no matter who I voted for, the military and the corporations would be the winners. I'm a socialist and an atheist. I was tired of waiting for my utopian dream world, so I compromised and took a chance on Obama who seemed a good start. I was immediately and continuously disappointed with him. This prompted me to look into why there is no viable candidate. I began to feel that there is a secret government that has its own agenda. We are definitely divided as a nation. However, this secret government seems to not care what any public faction wants. I think it may like the fact that we are deeply divided. I have no proof yet of a secret government. I joined ATS because of this feeling and have found puzzling evidence in the threads.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Mate, what was the alternative? McCain AND the Palin ... Really ????????



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Wow...Just wow.
...
...
I'll have more to say in a bit.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


BECAUSE GOVERNMENT FORCED THEM TO!


Government didn't force those private financial instutions to lend to everybody and anybody. You seem to talk alot about the bias against big business owners and the wealthy, but it appears that with every crises at hand, the big businesses cannot do any harm and government is only to blame. When are you going to stop making excuses for these big businesses? They don't care about you, why are you allowing yourself to be used?

These private institutions had a choice, americans citizens had a choice, both sides made choices, government didn't put a gun to their heads to make those choices. Clinton, with the support of Republicans, the then libertarian advocate Alan Greenspan, and many democrats, signed into law a bill that would allow fannie and freddie mac to lend to them. There was no force, no obligations, the opportunity was opened to people, and they made it. The couple who decided to lend money and invest into a house made that choice by themselves, government didn't force them. Financial institutions had all the power and time to refuse those loans. Can you refer to one of these financial institutions that was punished by the government for refusing a loan? Do you have any sources for this? Because this is your argument, they didn't want to make these loans, so where's the evidence? Where were the free marketers at the time when clinton signed this in? Where were they all that time prior to 2007? They were no where, you were no where, nobody objected to making loans available, people made choices. You can't blame government for the faults and poor choices of private individuals and private institutions.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


To further my point Neo, I refer you to a New York times article back in 1999:


The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.


You that word there? Encouraged? Let's go through the article further:


banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

www.nytimes.com...

Private institutions wanted government to get off their backs and wanted to be free to make their own decisions, that is exactly what they got.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The reasons the governments created the situation is because they lifted the regulations and basically let the financial institutions run government economic policy. If you leave the banking industry to regulate themselves they will be greedy and that greed has led us to the economic meltdown we are now in. Remember there has been the biggest transfer of wealth from public to private in history.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by beezzer
 


This post is so utterly full of garbage that I can't possibly figure out where to start.

We're in the situation we're in now primarily due to the rampant deregulation and constant cuts demanded by people like you, insipid twits who honestly think that the deficit can be done away with by cutting taxes, who think jobs will be created by letting business move overseas, and who earnestly believe that gigantic tax breaks for the 0.5% will see massive increases in prosperity for the bottom 60%.

The people you're pissing on and calling it trickle-down almost universally have more personal responsibility to their name than you've ever glimpsed.


What de-regulation exactly? The one where Barney who oversaw Fannie and Freddie said everything was great, when it was going bankrupt with bad loans? The one where Clinton and Carter forced lending institutions to make loans regardless if they were sound so that they could court the votes of people using class warfare? The one where illegals are allowed to come over the border nearly unchecked and commit crimes and suck off the govt welfare tit? Or the one where Obama gave baillouts to Wall Street then passed regulations ostensibly to stop that raping of the market, but instead forced taxpayers to pick up the tab so investment bankers could have their big bonuses then passed more legislation ostensibly to stop Wall Street rapine of the market but which just gives the govt the right to monitor our credit card records?
Every post I see you make is for bigger govt and more welfare. I see exactly where you stand, and you might think you are for the little guy, the hourly worker who has to work two jobs just to pay the gas bill, but you voted for a guy who deliberately wants your gas bill to "necessarily skyrocket". It just amazes me how people think like that.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



www.un.org...



Yes, they did. You just didn't get the memo on it.


In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977. Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.


On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The Times reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies


On January 26, 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190) was first introduced in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Hagel.[24] The Senate legislation was an effort to reform the existing GSE regulatory structure in light of the recent accounting problems and questionable management actions leading to considerable income restatements by the GSE's. After being reported favorably by the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, the bill was never considered by the full Senate for a vote. Sen. John McCain's decision to become a cosponsor of S.190 almost a year later in 2006 was the last action taken regarding Sen. Hagel's bill in spite of developments since clearing the Senate Committee. Sen. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management" in his floor statement giving support to S.190.

[

This Law was filibusted in the Senate by 2 Senators. Chris "double dip" Dodd and the most Liberal Member of the Senate, Barack Huessin Obama.

www.residual-rewards.com...
edit on 25-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
More on Fannie/Freddie


A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 was Sen. Barack Obama.


www.residual-rewards.com...


Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans by abusing the Community Reinvestment Act (see HERE and HERE)? The abuse of this act by ACORN and officials like Janet Reno was a factor in causing the economic crisis. The harassment suits filed under this act were used to get banks to lower credit standards and hand out high risk loans. We have dug up the lawsuit below while researching Obama’s legal career. It is a typical example of an ACORN harassment lawsuit.


In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?



It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed, or threatened to file, tons of these lawsuits and ALL CRA suits allege racism (usually the press involved and such with the threat of the CRA lawsuit is enough to get the bank to give in and put them in a catch 22, they also had a willing Janet Reno Justice Department to work with – see below for more on Reno). As we have said in our series or articles analyzing every aspect of this story (links at the very bottom of this post), the series of ACORN harassment lawsuits and intimidation against banks to lower credit standards was not the sole reason for the mortgage crisis, it was one important layer of many that brought us to the mortgage crisis and the largest financial scandal in the history of the world.

iusbvision.wordpress.com...
edit on 25-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join