Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus




I guess the roads really tripped you up because it made you vomit nonsense about internet access in response. Try the roads first. The founding fathers liked those socialst ass roads that got me to where my computer is today.

Would Goldman Sachs be happy with deregulation or more financial regulations and the new consumer watchdog. If we can answer that we probably will know if Obama is right.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The govt IS to blame for being complicit in and allowing the Goldman Sachs crowd a room at the Inn wherein they have taken the public to the cleaners. Govt allowed the baillouts.

Goldman & Co. IS the government, there isn't a difference anymore. Look at the CVs of those politicians, like Geitner they're all Goldmanians in disguise

Yeh, I saw that list of GS people in govt. A very sad picture indeed. And very telling too.

Yet you are part of the same crowd here on ATS that seems so bent on getting rid of Obama, you will vote for Newt Gingrich, Goldman Sachs Lobbiest.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dadgad

 

The govt IS to blame for being complicit in and allowing the Goldman Sachs crowd a room at the Inn wherein they have taken the public to the cleaners. Govt allowed the baillouts. Govt supported it. Govt is a very bad parent right now and the answer is partially to get rid of the Nanny State and let the bad companies go bankrupt. In fact that is how the free market is supposed to work, but govt gets in there and interferes with what it thinks is the solution because they serve the bankers and the bankers serve them too. If it were not for politicians who let Goldman Sachs wag the tail, the public would not have been used as it has. If we had good people in office, Goldman Sachs would never have been given this chance, nor would Fannie/Freddie have been allowed its abuses. Barney Frank was Congressional Oversight and he did NOT do his job, he was in fact on the take. Greed in govt is at least half of the problem.
It was collusion in the govt which allowed the Federal Reserve Act to be passed in the first place which gave the banking cabal a room at the Inn and to steal all the money from the public over the last century. Who was President then? Woodrow Wilson.
Read G Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" to find out how bankers and their cronies in govt ruined this country with the Federal Reserve.

I'll help you with a YouTube of one of his lectures. I will post part 1 and you could go on YouTube and find the rest


Here is a radio show nutshell version

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

This is a very simplistic way of looking at the situation.

Why blame the bankers for these actions? Again this is simply capitalism at work, the survival of the fittest, the smartest, the most brutal and most ruthless.

I have partially read that book, it's very interesting. I can't say that I applaud these bankers, but in a way I do. Capitalism is about profit making and they simply outsmarted everyone.

I used to be like you, but gradually changed my views.

In a system in which money is the only tool to move things, how naive is it to think that corporate power abuse will not occur. They got all the money.

The only so called savior that libertarianism has in defending free markets is the notion of competition. Competition will solve everything. But competition is what lead to this situation. The smartest, most ruthless and most brutal got what they wanted. You can sit there and cry like a baby saying that they played false, but I'd rather question the very system itself. The system that enabled this. Something is wrong there.

reply to post by geryon


GS as well as the rest of them want Govt to clearly get out of the way and to go away and to never ever threaten them, like most industries banks are the very few to indirectly come out and say it through their "Bought and paid employees", I mean politicians!

They and every other industry wants to take this nation back to the late 1800's in terms of regulations and rights. This is who is pushing things like this.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Some isp providers will allow you to roam with a laptop and piggyback on WiFi feeds as and it's free as long as you stay within a certain zone (like 5 miles from your house). The entire city of Jersey City, NJ is one giant WiFi hotspot!

So it's wifi and yes I understand that concept. It is still using private bandwidth. Some private owners allow you to use their wifi, like Starbucks you can come in and use their bandwidth. Also, the wireless community does basically allow users to jump on their bandwidth unless they configure their networks to stop unauthorized access. Either way, it's still not SOCIALISM!

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by mastahunta

conservative ideas are the ones that make sure the corporation and the bankers
are eternally free, thanks to hiding behind the free market, marketing plan

Wanna challenge the banks today? You are deemed a socialist. Guess who calls the
person a socialist? Guess who wants to give the banks more freedom and more power?

AMEN

Ignorant crap ...

I suggest you go and visit China ... it's a communist country. To get a driver license, you need a bank account ... and if you run over a red light, it's automatically drawn from your bank account. If you run over and kill someone ... you have to pay money. If somebody hijacks your child and sells it as slave labour, you'll have to bring a receipt to get compensation. Maybe they'll give you a "dime", literally.

If this is the world you want ... get the hell out of the western world and move your family to China.

WTF does China have to do with conservatives making holes in rules and laws applied
to banks and corporations???

Ignorant people like you, seem to have the ability to consider more than one idea at at time.

Maybe they'll run W again and you can be happy!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Jersey City's WiFi is provided for free by Google and is of no charge or additional surcharge to the end user which was amongst the group that launched the third type of WiFi along with Private (home) - Corporate (company owned WiFi) and that is Public (Govt provided)!

As long as your account is verifiable the access is free!

WiFi provided by Starbucks or McDonalds is Corporate which, btw is heavily monitored and a majority of those spots record your activity and sends it to Govt. It's better to run WiFi off of a private or public network as there's a helluva lot less chance of your history being recorded and sent to some third party!

Originally posted by kenochs
Dear OP. At least have the decency and honestly not to take the President out of context.
The President was speaking only about the disproven concept of 'trickle down economics.' Not to Free markets and individualism. Dishonesty doesn't work on ATS.

Dishonesty is the best political tool ever invented because it is pliable and can be morphed
into a new form depending on the contention.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Jersey City's WiFi is provided for free by Google and is of no charge or additional surcharge to the end user which was amongst the group that launched the third type of WiFi along with Private (home) - Corporate (company owned WiFi) and that is Public (Govt provided)!

As long as your account is verifiable the access is free!

edit on 8-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Last time I checked, Google is still a privately owned corporation, so even if they are providing a service free to someone, they still paid for it and not the State. If they have a deal with the city of New Jersey then great. Did the taxpayers pay for this service to be used by the State? If not, then it is a donation made by a private corporation.
However, I will say that due to the fact that Google is a very liberal establishment and has worked with Communist China with their Internet service there, and provided the very filtering software used by Communist China to censor the networks, it does not surprise me that they would provide a vehicle which would mimic a Statist system to get people used to expecting broadband from their local and State govts, or the Federal govt, and this is where the Obama admin is trying to take people.
So yah, I see where that is going.

What does Google get back from the govt and where is OWS demanding that Google a private corporation stop getting handouts from the govt?????
And thanks for putting me onto this
Read and weep for your own hypocrisy
www.cfif.org... gle

ok I checked it a bit and came up with this wikipedia entry on wifi and public/private partnership

en.wikipedia.org...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMunicipal wireless network (Municipal Wi-Fi, Muni Wi-Fi or Muni-Fi)
is the concept of turning an entire city into a Wireless Access Zone (WAZ), with the ultimate goal of making wireless access to the Internet a universal service. This is usually done by providing municipal broadband via Wi-Fi to large parts or all of a municipal area by deploying a wireless mesh network. The typical deployment design uses hundreds of routers deployed outdoors, often on utility poles. The operator of the network acts as a wireless internet service provider.
Such networks go far beyond the existing piggybacking opportunities available near public libraries and some coffee shops. The basic premise of carpeting an area with wireless service in urban centers is that it is more economical to the community to provide the service as a utility rather than to have individual households and businesses pay private firms for such a service. Such networks are viewed as capable of enhancing city management and public safety, especially when used directly by city employees out in the field. They can also be viewed as a social service to those who cannot afford private high-speed services such as DSL. When the network service is free and a small number of clients consume a majority of the available capacity, operating and regulating the network might prove difficult.[1][2]
The US Federal Trade Commission has expressed some concerns about such private/public partnerships as trending towards a franchise monopoly.[3]
Technology continues to advance. In 2007, companies with existing cell sites offered competing paid high-speed wireless services where the laptop owner purchased a PC card or adapter which uses communications based on EV-DO cellular data receivers or WiMAX rather than 802.11b/g. High-end laptops in 2007 featured built-in support for these newer protocols. WiMAX is designed to implement a metropolitan area network (MAN) while 802.11 is designed to implement a wireless local area network (LAN).
2010 ushers in the potential for what is being called “super WiFi” or "white spots.” In September 2010, the FCC announced that radio spectrum formerly only available to television stations would be opened for public use, carrying with it the potential for increased WiFi range and decreases in cost, and potentially making it easier to offer rural areas broadband Internet access.[4][5][6]

Usually, a private firm works closely with local government to construct such a network and operate it. Financing is usually shared by both the private firm and the municipal government. Once operational, the service may be free, supported by advertising, provided for a monthly charge per user or some combination.

a few sectors of a city to demonstrate competence before making the larger investment of attempting full coverage of a city.

So, yes an interesting trend in public/private partnerships, also on the UN Agenda 21 model so thanks both of you for posting on this issue.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The deal in q is with the City Of Jersey City directly.

www.nj.com...

Comcast is also providing hotspots which reclassifies it as public as a Comcast or a Google's Corporate WiFi only applies to their offices and all property they own.

If you are using a Starbucks WiFi that only is connectable while inside the spot and if you are outside and do not have an independent signal nor are on your cities WiFi you can't get a signal as the signal only goes to like 20 or so feet from the box inside the store and does not extend to a sidewalk or a parking lot.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


American Socalist ROADS which I mentioned first and last really cause you trouble didn't it? Keep arguing wifi with others to avoid it all you want. Hell I said I was not on wifi anyway but I also mentioned the ROADS TWICE, those SOCIALIST AMERICAN ROADS.

Can you see it now?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Jersey City's WiFi is provided for free by Google and is of no charge or additional surcharge to the end user which was amongst the group that launched the third type of WiFi along with Private (home) - Corporate (company owned WiFi) and that is Public (Govt provided)!

As long as your account is verifiable the access is free!

edit on 8-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Last time I checked, Google is still a privately owned corporation, so even if they are providing a service free to someone, they still paid for it and not the State. If they have a deal with the city of New Jersey then great. Did the taxpayers pay for this service to be used by the State? If not, then it is a donation made by a private corporation.

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I specifically said I was talking about the energy and communications infrastructure, you know after ROADS and before I again mentioned ROADS.

I have never seen someone try so hard to avoid something.

This thread is a Hoax

Queue the fingers in ears, squinted eyes and incessant humming “I can’t hear you”

He is not speaking of the “Founding Fathers”

He is not deriding “free markets”…he actually vehemently praises “free markets”

He is speaking very specifically about trickle-down economics which were first tried in the 1800’s and failed. Back then they called it “Horse and Sparrow” theorey….If you feed the horse enough oats eventually the sparrows will be able to pick something to eat out of the manure…and most recently it was tried by Reagan and then Bush…both failed miserably…unless anyone would like to argue that the Bush era tax cuts have created jobs over the past decade?

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.

If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

www.politicalruminations.com...

I have respect with those who disagree with the President, even those who start with an emotional premise and simply don’t “like” him or don’t “trust” him.

But I have no respect for those who lie to support their ideology. They corrupt our national discourse. Insult the intelligence of those they lie to. They are wannabe propagandists

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The deal in q is with the City Of Jersey City directly.

www.nj.com...

Comcast is also providing hotspots which reclassifies it as public as a Comcast or a Google's Corporate WiFi only applies to their offices and all property they own.

If you are using a Starbucks WiFi that only is connectable while inside the spot and if you are outside and do not have an independent signal nor are on your cities WiFi you can't get a signal as the signal only goes to like 20 or so feet from the box inside the store and does not extend to a sidewalk or a parking lot.

edit on 8-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Then likely it is the real paying customers who pick up the tab for these services. No wonder they have been attaching more and more fees and taxes for these services. But you see, someone still has to pay the price don't they, and don't you and your friend feel so proud to be people who take advantage of it?

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I guess the roads really tripped you up because it made you vomit nonsense about internet access in response. Try the roads first. The founding fathers liked those socialst ass roads that got me to where my computer is today.

No, the truth is that I was simply unaware of how the Obama govt has been working the socialist aspect of wifi, although I was aware of the Net Neutrality business, I was not aware of the strides that Google and other corporate welfare taker giants were making to help Obama socialize and fundamentally transform our great Nation. Thanks for putting me on to this crazy stuff.
What about the roads? Did you mean the one you fellow travelers use while taking advantage of private citizens? You apparently do not see your own hypocrisyl.
OWS wants to get rid of corporate welfare my derriere!!!! What a bunch of socialist posers!!!!!!


As for understanding wifi, it is likely I have a better technical awareness of it than you or your socialist friends. It is likely you just use the services rather than understand how they work.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The deal in q is with the City Of Jersey City directly.

www.nj.com...

Comcast is also providing hotspots which reclassifies it as public as a Comcast or a Google's Corporate WiFi only applies to their offices and all property they own.

If you are using a Starbucks WiFi that only is connectable while inside the spot and if you are outside and do not have an independent signal nor are on your cities WiFi you can't get a signal as the signal only goes to like 20 or so feet from the box inside the store and does not extend to a sidewalk or a parking lot.

edit on 8-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Then likely it is the real paying customers who pick up the tab for these services. No wonder they have been attaching more and more fees and taxes for these services. But you see, someone still has to pay the price don't they, and don't you and your friend feel so proud to be people who take advantage of it?

Dont forget the nice tax right off that the company gets. It is a win win win.
They raise rates on current customers, get a tax break and look like the great provider of free crap to the people.

Unintended externalities are possible as a result of local governments providing Internet service to their constituents. A private service provider could choose to offer limited or no service to a region if that region’s largest city opted to provide free Internet service, thus eliminating the potential customer base. This could prevent other municipalities in that region from benefiting from the services of the private provider. The smaller municipalities would at the same time not benefit from the free service provided by the larger city. Overuse could be another issue. If usage of the publicly provided network became heavier than existing private options network overload issues could arise, forcing the municipality to invest more heavily, thus spending more revenue, on infrastructure to maintain the existing level of service. This issue could be compounded if private providers begin exiting a market as mentioned above.

www.google.com...:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1 I7ACGW_enUS459US459

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Don't count your chickens before they hatch buddy. I have just heard word that Sensenbrenner has come out of a courtroom whereby the AG Holder is going to have his feet held to the fire on his dirty dealings and it is an impeachable offense what he did.

Happy Holidays buddy!

WTF does any of that have to do with my post or the OP????

That is the issue here...It is not about Pro-Obama or Anti-Obama...it is about people BSing.

I am not an Obama "loyalist"...no one should be. Be loyal to your country and the truth.

And this OP is utter BS...it offends me not because it is Anti-Obama, but because it is Anti-American to fabricate complete BS to further a political agenda.

Assuming that anyone who confronts a lie is somehow defending a politician is just mentally handicapped...about the same as lieing to attack a politician