It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Terrible Development! Ridiculous Compromise yet again!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:16 AM
Some other interesting things to think about while all this is going on...

The idea of a Joint Committee came up several times.. which as of right now, sounds like a really good thing, but it could turn out to be a really bad thing.

Meanwhile, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is quote:
"attacking America as “a parasite” on the global economy."

Read more:

Nice to know we're making friends...

edit on 2-8-2011 by Time2Think because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:30 AM
sick of hearing the words entitlement programs!! if you notice on your paystubs,and youd have to be blind not to,they take just as much for social security then they do federal taxes.same with medicare,seperate tax for if im paying in all this money on the premise it will be there for me when i retire how is that considered an entitlement?its like opening a savings account and putting in 20 percent of your check every week for 30 plus years then saying "sure you can take my life savings and spend it on whatever you want"we pay into it so its there when we need in there way of thinking,my 401k is an entitlement program.i think its time to physically remove these children(because thats what they ALL act like)from government and start over without all the special intrest groups and lobbyists.they have no rite being in washington and trying to influence our government officals!!TIME FOR THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:34 AM
I bet you that Obama does not get in. in 2012.
( hes done the evil deed.)
1,000,000 dollars. that will be about 10 pounds english.
by then.

Be smart. get some land you can farm.
have NO cash at all ! if they ask for a tax.
you have No cash. pay with a chicken!
or Cow s!!!. Ever one do this.
I wish I had the cash to do this.
Good luck to the people of america.
you Need it...

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by notsoobvious

so if im paying in all this money on the premise it will be there for me when i retire how is that considered an entitlement?

Because a large number of the people receiving the benefits have never paid in. Ilegal aliens comes to mind right off the bat. Also, disabled children that get benefits. Also, all these entitlement programs are ponzi schemes, and they never had a fund set aside to draw from. The day they started payroll deducting, they also started paying out!

The SS system has been doomed from the start, but it has miraculously survived this long, and now the Federal Govt loots it to pay other expenses that aren't doing as well.

The first reported Social Security payment was to Ernest Ackerman, who retired only one day after Social Security began. Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.[25]

The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[26]


But, I entirely agree with throwing out the whole bunch and starting over from scratch!!

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:56 AM
Ladies and gentlemen...we have just been thrown under the bus. Our "leaders" have chosen not to lead, but to agree to a bull$hit compromise that does nothing but sell us out for another year (or so). "Business as usual" as they say. I say...mark this day...for once the agreement is signed, the beginning of the end has officially occurred. Our "leaders" have sold out the country and the people for their pet projects, their "special interests" and THEIR parties. From here is all downhill.

However...a little glimmer of hope here. They have all shown their hand. Lets make a pact...democrats & republicans...liberals and conservatives. Dump them all, kill the two party system and vote only for individuals and then, hold them to their promises. FORCE THEM to represent us, or force them out of office.

Maybe we should all proclaim to all our "leaders", democrats and republicans..."I AM NOT ONE OF YOU!!!". "You are a paid employee of the people...and you suck at your job."

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:23 AM
why we need a bloated Defense budget, or should you say Offense budget, makes no sense in
this era of fiscal uncertainty.
check out what other countries are spending on their military and be shocked...

the US is far and away the biggest spender on war...

Data Up to 2011; CIA World Factbook; Wikipedia
Only countries for which we have data are listed.

United States of America
$692,000,000,000 2011

$100,000,000,000 2011

United Kingdom
$73,746,170,000 2011

$70,495,000,000 2011

$56,000,000,000 2011

$50,400,000,000 2011

$44,788,000,000 2011

$41,000,000,000 2011

it's high time to kill the defense budget...

we can cut the defense budget in HALF and still outspend the next 5 nation's
military budgets COMBINED.

why we need to spend $700 Billion fighting people who live in caves and ride camels
makes no sense.
the "War on Terror" is a sham to rob you from your dollars.

If we are ever to get fiscally responsable and stop mortgaging our future,
gutting the defense budget is the place to start.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:30 AM
For those that can read past the political rhetoric and legal jargon, here is a copy of the bill...

very interesting to say the least.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
You all talk about our children's future? There is no future. The U.S. is ending right now.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:56 AM
I apologize for not putting this up earlier, but the bill incorporates the term "sequestration"...this is what it means...


Originally a legal term referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved. But the term has been adapted by Congress in more recent years to describe a new fiscal policy procedure originally provided for in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 -- an effort to reform Congressional voting procedures so as to make the size of the Federal government's budget deficit a matter of conscious choice rather than simply the arithmetical outcome of a decentralized appropriations process in which no one ever looked at the cumulative results until it was too late to change them. If the dozen or so appropriation bills passed separately by Congress provide for total government spending in excess of the limits Congress earlier laid down for itself in the annual Budget Resolution, and if Congress cannot agree on ways to cut back the total (or does not pass a new, higher Budget Resolution), then an "automatic" form of spending cutback takes place. This automatic spending cut is what is called "sequestration."

Under sequestration, an amount of money equal to the difference between the cap set in the Budget Resolution and the amount actually appropriated is "sequestered" by the Treasury and not handed over to the agencies to which it was originally appropriated by Congress. In theory, every agency has the same percentage of its appropriation withheld in order to take back the excessive spending on an "across the board" basis. However, Congress has chosen to exempt certain very large programs from the sequestration process (for example, Social Security and certain parts of the Defense budget), and the number of exempted programs has tended to increase over time -- which means that sequestration would have to take back gigantic shares of the budgets of the remaining programs in order to achieve the total cutbacks required, virtually crippling the activities of the unexempted programs.

The prospect of sequestration has thus come to seem so catastrophic that Congress so far has been unwilling actually to let it happen. Instead, Congress has repeatedly chosen simply to raise the Budget Resolution spending caps upward toward the end of the legislative session in order to match the actual totals already appropriated, thus largely wiping out the incentives that the reformed budget procedures were expected to provide for Congress to get better control of the budget deficit.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:20 AM
BOO WHAA, you people should quit your bitching about the Gooberment screwing you over because you all let them.

We are the Powers That Be, all 300,000,000 plus million of us, if we physically demand change as Comrade Stalin and Castro and many many others throughout history, things will change in our favor. our forefathers understood how to make this work and this is the only reason why we even have a country, but if we continue down this pissy path of obedience this country will be nothing more than a concentration camp and gulag.

You The People allowed the government to entrench themselves in mountains of granite and wield weapons of mass destruction and surveillance networks that will see into your soul, its all your fault, and again, either get off your asses and do something about it or quit you incessant bitching and whining

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:24 AM
WOW...even MSNBC (not FOX) has some concerns over this. Here is the link.

A deal that saves the US economy? No — it may have made it worse

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:46 AM
Obama to Become 'Führer', Like Hitler Did on August 2 if Debt Deal Passes!!

QEIII and the Fate of Mankind

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

of course they have concerns. all our government has done is opt to punt with the game on the line.

why deal with it today when you can put it off until tomorrow?

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by Crakeur

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

That's obvious, isn't it? Because if you push for real action on meaningful change, then the VP and president pro tem of the senate says you're a terrorist. You know, if they keep throwing that word around, it's going to soon lose its meaning.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
WOW...even MSNBC (not FOX) has some concerns over this. Here is the link.

A deal that saves the US economy? No — it may have made it worse

OK, so how do we get out of this economic mess???
I say we find a way to embrace free market capitalism again.

We can have 5% growth IF we remove the uncertainty out there.
We basically just need to -undo- everything Obama has done since he walked into the
White House. I'm not the only one saying that Obama has thrown a - wet blanket -
over our free market capitalism system.
- Repeal ObamaCare - The SCOTUS is going to find it unconstitutional anyway.
- Repeal Dodd-Frank - FinReg
- Drill - Baby - Drill - to force the speculators to reduce the price of gas to under $2 a gallon

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by ren1999
You all talk about our children's future? There is no future. The U.S. is ending right now.

It's not over yet, however all of the economic indicators look absolutely terrible.
It's almost as if someone has throw a wet blanket over the entire economy.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:36 AM
And the all knowing, all omnipotent markets are still down. Isn't that what happened during TARP? The banksters threatened economic collapse, and that we would all not eat if they didn't get their way...and once they did, the markets tanked anyway. I'm sick of them holding the security and well being of our families over our heads!

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:51 AM
So the Bill passed the Senate just now as well.

Can anybody post the official votes. It appears even the Tea Party voted for this bill! I need to know who to kick off my roster for 2012!!

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:59 AM
wonder what ron pauls view on it is and how he voted

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

The bill, which imposes sweeping new spending cuts over the next decade, was approved in a 74-26 vote; 60 votes were required for passage.

just about everyone votoed for this crap

as to the markets, there are other factors that are driving the market down but, I would imagine, the threat of a downgrade of our debt is still very much prevalent and knowing that we will be in worse shape in 6-12 months isn't helping the outlook

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in