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.

 

Answers to what Obama has done

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I figured this wouldn't go anywhere...


Unless your bashing Obama or making BS up to fit your idea of him...threads die rather quickly.

You place facts in front of the bashers..they retaliate with more BS...


I'd say you put a lot of *opinions* in front of everyone, not facts. Your *opinion* is that those were good things, but not everyone agrees with you that those WERE, indeed, good things.

If your definition of BS is when someone disagrees with you...think about it.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


64. . Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis

Reeve Paralysis Act Becomes Law

I am just choosing at random..


EVERY president has "signed" a bunch of great things during their term(s). Do these acts not originate in Congress??? How does a president get to take complete credit for things he's signed? I'm sure we could come up with a list of awesome things signed by each president in history. That specifically does NOT make ANY of them a great leader.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Still ignoring facts I see! Wow!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


Still ignoring facts I see! Wow!

What facts?
Please, answer the question instead of going into lah-lah land BS.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Unemployment has been on a steady rise since 2002!
National debt : Let's look at some facts shall we? :
www.usdebtclock.org...
Year - Operating and overall debts (in trillions)
2000 - $5.67 - $27.09
2004 - $7.58 - $37.73
2008 - $10.66 - $50.87
2011 - $15.14 - $56.39

You were saying? Who doubled both the operating and overall debts? That's right 43 and Company! If we would've followed to a "T" the Clinton plan we would've had an operating surplus and would've been near debt free by now but the fact 43 put 2 wars on the card somehow doesn't matter?
Forecasts are dismal unless we get some capital investments and injections soon.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1


Unemployment has been on a steady rise since 2002!

Ok, back to Sesame Street, huh?
Which is more?
Now Or then?



Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
National debt : Let's look at some facts shall we? :
www.usdebtclock.org...
Year - Operating and overall debts (in trillions)
2000 - $5.67 - $27.09
2004 - $7.58 - $37.73
2008 - $10.66 - $50.87
2011 - $15.14 - $56.39

I do believe you were busted on this in another retort, but lets play anyways.
As of today, National Debt is $15.1B
As of 2008, National Debt was $10.5B
As of 2004, National debt was $7.5B
Sesame street again, Sing with me won't you "Which one of these things is not like the other one, which one of these things is not the same".
Which is more?
And, where is the bigger jump?





Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
You were saying? Who doubled both the operating and overall debts?

That you are full of BS.


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

That's right 43 and Company! If we would've followed to a "T" the Clinton plan we would've had an operating surplus and would've been near debt free by now but the fact 43 put 2 wars on the card somehow doesn't matter?

Wrong again.
And just remember, the surplus that Clinton had was........................taadaa TAX PAYER MONEY.
Not the Government's money. So, Clinton accumulated a surplus of money that should have never been taken from the tax payer in the first place.



Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Forecasts are dismal unless we get some capital investments and injections soon.


What like, STIMULUS, TARP or force private business to inject money?
I do believe the last one falls under one of the pesky "ism's" talked about.

SO...........................You fail....................again.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You need to recalculate your numbers from 2008 to 2009, because everyone knows that the first budget a president signs is the last budget of the preceding president. Contemporarily, TARP also falls under the previous budget. Actually, the Debt was approximately 12.6T when all the ramifications of legislation passed furring the Bush Administration were said and done...

However, I fully expect this fact to be ignored and/or denied...just thought it was worth bringing up for the participants of this pointless debate to hear both sides and be able to decide for themselves.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Ooh-ooh, lets also look at the numbers for unemployment, shall we?
Using the link, you provided and taught here so often, what are the figures.

2000
Official Unemployment 5.6m
Actual Unemployment 9.4m

2004
Official Unemployment 8m
Actual Unemployment 13.7m

2008
Official Unemployment 11m
Actual Unemployment 13.5m

Today
Official Unemployment 13.1m
Actual Unemployment 23.8m

Now, where is the largest jump and largest overall number?

And lets see, who was in control of during those times?

You fail................................again.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by macman
 


You need to recalculate your numbers from 2008 to 2009, because everyone knows that the first budget a president signs is the last budget of the preceding president. Contemporarily, TARP also falls under the previous budget. Actually, the Debt was approximately 12.6T when all the ramifications of legislation passed furring the Bush Administration were said and done...

However, I fully expect this fact to be ignored and/or denied...just thought it was worth bringing up for the participants of this pointless debate to hear both sides and be able to decide for themselves.


I used the source provided, nothing more.
To go off of another source is not in this specific is moot.
I never denied that Bush was terrible. That TARP 1 was bad.
I state that 0bama is worse.
WAY big difference.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


This just further reiterates what I said while you just shot yourself in the foot by discrediting yourself in the post, thank you for that. Wow! So gullible!

The illuminated will be able to avoid being baited into contradicting themselves like you have just done!
edit on 22-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
1. Whomever told you that the auto industry has been "saved" is an outright liar. GM Volt costs taxpayers up to 250,000.00 per vehicle.Chevy Volt costs
2. You should say, shifted the focus of the war to Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran in addition to Afghanistan.
Libya, Syria, Iran, etc, etc.
3. Relaxed tensions? What are you drinking? Russia is moving warships because of our warring policy.
I will not keep posting references. Just key in "Russia moving warships."
4. Guantanamo can NOW hold Americans. Much talked about on ATS.
5. Show me the job creation that is NOT the federal government.
6. Another "national priority". Nice words. Politicians talk.
7. In recent years, the Nobel commission has forever tarnished the once vaunted Nobel Peace Prize. Obama himself was surprised since he had only been in office less than two weeks.
8. We all know how the economic stimulus worked out. The divide between the rich and poor is wider than it has ever been.
Gap Between Rich and Poor Widening...

I could go on, but it is clear that the OP is BS. Obama works for the big corporations that fund him. End of story.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


For everyone who goes on and on about Clinton: You can't negate the effect of the Republican congress in the 90s. Not to mention the fact that we were coming off of the prosperity of the Reagan years. That being said, I would LONG to have Clinton back into office, because he actually ended up being a much better president than I would have thought. I don't agree with many of his positions, but he was able to get things done by working with people around him.

I think we all have to understand that the person in the White House shouldn't take all of the credit OR the blame. Not Obama, Not Bush, Not Clinton, Not Reagan. There are so many factors at play. Leadership IS important, however, and that is what Obama lacks. He can talk a good game, but apparently he can't lead.

I'm going to boil it down for you: the reasons I don't like Obama don't entirely have to do with what we can blame him for or give him credit for ....it's more about Barack Obama as a person. I don't like his outlook on America. I don't like the class warfare (he started the "Wall St. vs. Main St. rhetoric while campaigning, and the OWS movement is its natural outgrowth in my opinion). I don't like the people he has surrounded himself with his whole life. I don't like his voting record (or lack thereof) while in the Senate. I don't like that his wife said she has never been proud of America until Barack was elected. I don't like the way he feels like he has to apologize around the world for America. I don't like the arrogant way he presents himself. I don't like the way he referred to the private sector as "the enemy". I could go on and on. Not only are he and I are about as philosophically different as 2 people can be, but I genuinely dislike him as a person.

I also don't like Newt Gingrich as a person, by the way. So it is true bi-partisan dislike from me!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


This just further reiterates what I said while you just shot yourself in the foot by discrediting yourself in the post, thank you for that. Wow! So gullible!

The illuminated will be able to avoid being baited into contradicting themselves like you have just done!
edit on 22-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Shot what in the where?
Honestly, can you even answer a question, or just retort with nonsensical gibberish?

Where is the biggest increase?
I beg you, PLEASE, just answer that simple question.
Where is the biggest increase to unemployment?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


The reality is there it's just up to you to find it.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


If you are going to attribute the success of the Clinton Administration to the policies of the Reagan Administration(the 80s weren't as great as people like to remember they were) then it must follow, logically, that the failure of the Obama Administration must be due to policies of the Bush Administration.

Truthfully, the Reagan Administration started in a recession, saw an extended recession in the middle of it and even the HW Bush Administration lost to Clinton due to an economic downturn.

In his first term, Reagan saw a higher unemployment rate that started and lasted much longer at its peak than Obama has.

In fact, from FDR to Carter, every president except Ford managed to leave office with a lower debt than the president before.

That all changed the moment Reagan started screwing with the Tax Code; and we've never gotten back on track since.

So, yes, celebrate the economic prosperity of the Reagan Legacy...he tripled the debt in 8 years, saw the beginning of the outsourcing of American production as well as the beginning of the stagnation of middle class wages and an even greater wealth disparity in America...but hey, it's became better than ever for those on top.
edit on 22/12/11 by madhatr137 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


If you are going to attribute the success of the Clinton Administration to the policies of the Reagan Administration(the 80s weren't as great as people like to remember they were) then it must follow, logically, that the failure of the Obama Administration must be due to policies of the Bush Administration.

Truthfully, the Reagan Administration started in a recession, saw an extended recession in the middle of it and even the HW Bush Administration lost to Clinton due to an economic downturn.

edit on 22/12/11 by madhatr137 because: (no reason given)


Did you miss this part of my reply:


I think we all have to understand that the person in the White House shouldn't take all of the credit OR the blame. Not Obama, Not Bush, Not Clinton, Not Reagan. There are so many factors at play.


I also attributed some of the Clinton success to the Republican congress.

I don't think you read what I said very closely.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


No, I caught that part.
What I read into your comments is a general theme of, "Clinton's economic success was because of Republicans" (Reagan's policies of the 80s + the Republican Congress of the 90s). Would I be wrong to have presumed that was your theme?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


Who do you think finances these campaigns? Wall Street, who doesn't have a solid voice in The Congress? Main Street so yes it is class warfare, being spearheaded by the rich v poor.

Watch the following :
Al Shatpton promo for MSNBC pertaining to blueberry pie :
youtu.be...

They are notorious for causing a mess but failing to own up and to take responsibility for this mess and find it easier to pass the blame to the next dude!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I really - sincerely - hope you get some intelligent and knowledgeable responses. Whether they are positive or negative.

For me - - I know Obama said he would take each issue - study it - then make a decision. I like that. I like methodical. Kind of like the Tortoise and the Hare. I'll take the "slow and sure" over political grandstanding.

I don't need a grand standing flag waver who makes gut and god decisions.

Jerry Brown is having the same problem with Republicans Obama is. They really don't care about anything but being Republican.

I completely agree with Obama calling them out.



This is a joke, right?

You cant seriously think that guy takes a heart felt "study" of issues, then makes a decision based on virtue?.. lol.. suuuure he does, and my name is Joe Isuzu.. IMO it's humanly impossible to be more dishonest, fake and insincere... he's a bad puppet. It cant be more obvious.

Speaking of what he's done.. noticeably absent were his recent extrajudicial assassination accomplishments... or that his NATO participation in Libya accomplished dozens of dead civilians..wtg dear leader!

But seriously, he has delivered on his promise of "change", no doubt about that... from "bad" to "worse".



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


He wants a chance to review everything to see if each is compliant with both The Constitution and American law and will not jump to conclusions neither will he rush to judgement and wants all the facts before him before acting so how is this wrong?

When we rush to judgement we got Iraq for example.

So, if an oppressed people call us for help in taking back their nation is The USA the very beacon and vessel of liberty and freedom supposed to just ignore it because it's not politically popular? What if France had said no to us during the start of the American Revolution when we were seeking help? Where would we be today? A Commonwealth of The UK!
edit on 23-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join