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

page: 26
132
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by CaptainKostr
 



I do care whether My President in Office cares about this Country, and whether or not he's trying to do the right thing. I do understand that he is one man fighting against a corrupt system.


GeorgiaGirl posts
Wall Street contributes MORE to Obama (and the Democratic Party) than to any other candidate. He is not FIGHTING against the corrupt system...he is PART of the corrupt system.

In addition, you will never convince me that he cares about this country. All indications are to the contrary, in my opinion.


Earlier this week many in the new media focused on a report that Mitt Romney's campaign had outraised Barack Obama's campaign on Wall Street--that is, among those in the financial services industry. It was a profoundly misleading report, as our friends at the Washington Post revealed in a story this morning.

When you count contributions not only to the Obama campaign but also to the Democratic National Committee--and the Obama folks have been systematically raising money for both--and you focus not just on the last reporting quarter but on the full campaign cycle so far, you find that Obama has raised more from the financial services industry than all the Republican presidential candidates put together.



In any case, Obama's campaign posture as the scourge of Wall Street is in important ways deeply fraudulent, as you can see when you follow the money.


www.aei.org... public-opinion/elections/obama-and-wall-street-follow-the-money/



CaptainKostr Posts:
Here's the Truth as I see it... Everyone on the entire planet wants Peace in their individual lives. Those who do not want Peace in their life are psychologically damaged in some way and need help. Everyone believes their way to bring about Peace is the correct way. My way for instance, at it's root is very simple. If everyone shared just a common simple thought such as this:

"If you wish to have Peace then you yourself must first Be Peaceful."

Now if Everyone in the World just agreed on that one small simple philosophy, and we all held onto that thought and acted upon it with great regard in our actions when dealing with one another, we would have World Peace.

The intentions of the individual are not always clear and often we must try to look between the lines to understand what they are trying to do. I believe that Every Leader wishes to achieve such a balance, however since we all share such differences as to how to balance things, we over complicate things and end up working against each other. Common ground, one common belief shared by all as a foundation can change the entire World. Hidden agenda's and underhanded methods lead not to Peace but to further corruption.

I say because he is the President he is trying to fix things in his own way. If we were all able to know his true intentions, as with any other leader, we would see that he and all those before him wanted to create Peace and Balance. The problem I see with his method and the method of all before him is that there must first be a foundation built that is agreed upon by all. Each leader is but one person and it will take all of us working together to create Peace and Balance. We must first all agree upon one thing before we can move to the next.

If you don't like This President or the Last one, you will probably not like the Next one. The problem is not our Presidents or our Leaders, it is with All of us as a whole. We must learn to work with what we have in order to get what we all want. The President in office is Your President, if we're going to keep waiting for a President that seems like "The One", we will wait the rest of our lives.

The President, whom ever it may be, is Our spokesperson and we must use the systems we have designed over the centuries to communicate with him to achieve what we want. We need a web site that teaches people about all the methods we have to speak out within our Government. We all need to take an active role as individuals in our Government and teach those around us how to do the same. Many don't know How to interact with their Government so the system is failing us and will continue to do so until we all know how to use it.

As I have mentioned before, we also need an "Online Voting System" so as to encourage greater voter turnout and active participation in our Government. With a centralized web site that voices all the different issues, we can become educated about any issue and become informed voters.
edit on 10-12-2011 by CaptainKostr because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by CaptainKostr because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Except America never had free markets. Not in the last 98 years at least.

Remember the robber barons? The war industry that started in WW1?

Free markets died the day the FED was created and the day political contributions from corporations were allowed.


Remember that the Feds were given control of this country by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS who also implemented the IRS as it exists today and other laws which are UnConstitutional...

I just read about some more really bad news. In MISSOULA, Montana, the city council is enforcing Agenda 21 from the UN.

Agenda21 in Missoula

This is a move also introduced by PROGRESSIVES claiming that "we must do our part to combat "anthropogenic Climate Change"...

Some of us in these forums have been warning people about this, and as always many didn't listen, or just wanted to ignore the facts.

What is happening in Missoula will be common place in other towns around the country. It is part of the PROGRESSIVE agenda. But many conservatives, and Republicans in power, who have been bought off, will also vote for this type of PROGRESSIVE laws.


edit on 10-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


People really do need to learn history. The pole shift only happened in the '60s, for crying out loud. There was nothing 'PROGRESSIVE' about democrats back when the FED was created. The Democrats of that day were the same as far right Republicans today. The two sides switched during the civil rights movement. Racist, ignorant Southern Democrats joined the Republican party when the Democratic party leadership wanted equal rights for blacks, and good Republicans joined the Democratic party when all the racist, ignorant bigots started joining theirs. Up until then, Republicans were the "left" and Democrats were the "right". Lincoln, slave-freer and liberal extraordinaire, was a Republican, and is now a hero of the Democrats, because the Republican party actually used to be the 'good guys' until the realignment of the '60s. So any way you look at it, all the ignorant bigots are on your side, no matter what they are called. People with similar values always gather together, go figure. And crap rolls downhill. So the people you are complaining about creating the FED and IRS were actually YOUR OWN KIND.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
It's almost comical how some people on here take political/economic concepts to ridiculous "Glenn Beck" like extremes...completely ignoring the FACT that all those systems have benefits and drawbacks. The right mix is key.

There's great socialist concepts that benefit the population, and there's free market concepts that benefit the population...just like there's drawbacks that can be prevented. Introducing individual parts of some system doesn't mean you're automatically subscribing to the extreme version of that system.

Only morons and Glenn Beck believe otherwise (O'Reilly too).



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Not to mention Obama's presidency doesn't fit americas dream lol. What a G&S pawn! Let's see his bank account after Paul win's the next election!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by lrak2
For Marx, Communism is a stateless, classless society characterized by abundance. The workers control the means of production and goods are produced for social need, not profit.


Mr. Karl Marx, is a jewish middle class born into a wealthy family. He was an economist, and a philosopher.

There was nothing further from Mr. Karl Marx mind, than "freedom" ...



Hear, Hear. Communism is Socialism in name only. Probably they deliberately added the "socialist" part to make it sound better! There is a huge difference between communism and democratic socialism.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SirTFiedSkeptic
 


Democratic socialists simply emphasize the democratic aspect of their political views, as opposed to more authoritarian socialists. Additionally, democratic socialists generally tend to be reformist rather than revolutionary.

Marx himself never made any real distinction between socialism and communism. Nowadays, the term socialism is used to denote a lower form of communism which bears some of the marks of the transition from bourgeois society.

Now, if you are talking about the various Marxist regimes of the 20th century who called themselves communist, then that's another subject.

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: formatting

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: more info



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators


This seems like the one part of government they do not actually want to interfere in, they would prefer open borders free-trade instead of protecting the American workforce and our industry. (D & Rs alike)


You cannot assume I have the same agenda as everyone who posted in my thread, because you of all people should know that is not true. I have said it on here before and will say it again, I am not a Libertarianwhodislikesallgovernment. Libertarians are my friends here because we have a lot in common but in my opinion they have fallen off an intellectual cliff, as Russell Kirk said they are “chirping sectarians breaking down further and further into new groups”. Capitalism and Socialism to me are two sides of the same coin, both are materialist ideologies created out of class war rhetoric (bourgeois vs. aristocrats, proletariat vs. bourgeois).

I am a Conservative, not a Ronald Reagan conservative, but more of a G.K. Chesterton Conservative.

Please, check it out to learn the difference


According to my econ prof friend, the middle class is a, and has always been a middle point between socialism and consolidation/corporatism...it must be maintained by authitority, else it will slip into corporatism..where the entire wealth of a nation is controlled by a few hands and all in the nation are subjected to being little more than subjects of a monopoly...this, if I look up from a book and at the landscape of the west, is hitting very close to a realized truth in the making. Spin words as much as you want, but sometimes a umbrella is just an umbrella no matter how many ways you try to display it.

I am not saying government is good at monitoring the economics of the nation...actually, they are made of fail..but the current cry seems to be either let it stay as is, or tear it down and salt the earth, never to grow again...there seems to be little talk from politicians or armchair political generals (and minions) from either side about addressing what is the problem here.

There are things that would most certainly help almost overnight and establish a firm middle class..such as enacting very strong tariffs against any nation that has unfair labor practices (3rd world sweatshops) and taxing corporations so heavily that rely on outsourcing and importing to said nations until they either stop their practices, or leave our shores

But this won't happen, because we already have a strong corporatist agenda going on whom would lose profits for such a thing...

What I see is one party doing nothing to address this (Dems) and the other party working hard to promote it (Reps)...these are the two we are given to choose from

Now, we can dream of a new party (the mighty unicorn party), or we can focus in on trying to slap around one of the main partys until they fight for what is right...of the two, which one do you think is more likely to go against the corporate destroyers given their stances? realistically neither, but if there is a glimmer of hope...that is to the left. Hard to tell the cheerleaders to shoot the quarterback, but the apathetic peanut salesmen might be convinced.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Obama's speech sounds like Socialist diatribe. It may be better to describe it as communist diatribe. It is reminiscent of the speeches made by fascist leaders. It’s evidence that he wants to create more people that are dependent upon the government. This is what he calls the middle class. He is either a communist or what the communist describe as a dumb liberal that doesn’t’ know that they are being used by communists. What he seems to forget is that his anti-American rhetoric proves he can’t be trusted. If a despot were to take over America they would kill people that had already proven that they would fight against their own government. At least that is what was done in Germany, Russia and Italy when the Socialist took over. I think it's important to remember our past so we don't repeat it. We have to vote this guy out and vote Ron Paul in as soon as possible.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrFGB
Obama's speech sounds like Socialist diatribe. It may be better to describe it as communist diatribe. It is reminiscent of the speeches made by fascist leaders.


Which speech? The real one or the one you read?
Listen, when you mix up communism, socialism, and fascism in the first two sentences it is clear you really do not know what any of those things mean.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by Maxmars

...
Any who would believe that "it doesn't work" when the last century was spent not doing "it" would have to be what some refer to a sheep.
....





Notice that you distilled my comment to: "Is your only argument to call the other a sheep?"

There is an older phrase, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"

Need I explain that I am not saying those who do so are insane, but that it does fit the generality of the comment?

I fear you are angered that I disagree with the President's assertions. Sorry for angering you.


More and more I realize that you and others behind you have absolutely no arguments for this crisis, except blaming the government and addressing the need to return to sound ethics. That's all.


Sadly, I can admit to no such "people behind me" and I will ask you not to assume that personal attacks will be tolerated because the speaker perceives them as righteous. I certainly do have an argument. See my earlier post and consider it more carefully please.

I don't blame the government AT ALL. I blame YOU, and ME, and THEM. We have all entrusted our government to people who have little interest in anything other than maintaining the illusion that they care about something greater than their own welfare and that of their posteritry and associates. WE allow that. Election cycle after election cycle we play this stupid game pretending that one party or another is at fault or has the answer to the problems we face. Sorry... those people DON'T CARE ABOUT US. They care about their appearance, their glory, and the continuance of their status and power. You really expect ANY of them to "fix" a problem which for them is an interruption from their glamorous lives? Truly?

The government is a cosntruct... a tool of the people.... those who man the positions of government are our SERVANTS. It is not the governemnt at fault... it's the people.. the social club, the self-appointed elite, and in large part the economic royalty that control them.

I know it is presumtpuous to assume you will understand me as not being a partisan player.... but clearly, the last thing I will pretend is that it is the fault of any one man, or any one party. The fault is ours - which is why we are paying the price. The politicians want to keep us focusing our concerns away from that reality... so they can stay in the limelight as heroes of the people... and continue to promote their particular social club above the need to struggle and labor.... while they tell us how "complicated" things are....


How about questioning your system? I think Obama is completely right. It doesn't work and didn't work. It had the illusion of working, you have profited endlessly from brutal exploitation, but these times are coming to an end now. The system is eating it self up.


Obama could have been right. If he had not mischaracterized history; and if he had dared to speak of specific solutions. What is "it" that didn't work? Certainly not the fantasy he described....

I agree the exploitation is inhuman... but I can all but guarantee that neither he, nor his party, nor his "mentors" - NOR THOSE OF HIS OPPONENT'S have a solution. Why am I so certain? Because the solution means removing THEM from the equation. We can't have that now can we?


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


Well first of all I apologize for my rude tone. I know it is not an excuse but I had been on ATS for too long at that moment. I had become frustrated with the kind of responses I was receiving. By that I mean the kind of rude and simplistic responses that really get to you after a while.

In any case I disagree with your views. You see I don't think that we have failed in the sense that we have not been able to remain faithful to particular ideologies. I am simply implying that they do not work any longer, time has outgrown them. The democratic institutions that we use are no longer able to cope with the problems we face on a global level. Capitalism cannot solve our problems, but merely aggravate them. The different democratic institutions around the world function as a barrier to achieve sustainable solutions. At this moment the climate-top is holding a conference which is turning out into another fiasco. I say this happens simply because each nation has it's own democratic system, it's own voice and it's own sovereignty. We now face problems that require cooperation on a global level, but each nation has it's own interests which to them are more important.

I know it is a big thing to say but I am saying it. The current systems we use, liberal capitalism and democracy are not working out.

If we continue on the road we are on it is bound to lead to a major catastrophe, but I assume you agree with me on that.

edit on 11-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


There was no one more deadset against a privately controlled central bank then Andrew Jackson who until he died was able to maintain a nationalized central bank and wasn't until after he left office did the First Privately held central bank launch and look at all of the chaos it has caused since.

The Founding Fathers were for a nationalized central bank and was deadset against a privately held and controlled central bank so on that you need to relook at history!

By 2014 our Central bank will be nationalized and there isn't a group or entity out there that will stop it.

This new nationalism deal is exactly what we need now, no more divisive politics, no more crud. Nationalization now or an all out global nuclear war there is no third option.
edit on 11-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


There was no one more deadset against a privately controlled central bank then Andrew Jackson who until he died was able to maintain a nationalized central bank and wasn't until after he left office did the First Privately held central bank launch and look at all of the chaos it has caused since.

The Founding Fathers were for a nationalized central bank and was deadset against a privately held and controlled central bank so on that you need to relook at history!

By 2014 our Central bank will be nationalized and there isn't a group or entity out there that will stop it.

This new nationalism deal is exactly what we need now, no more divisive politics, no more crud. Nationalization now or an all out global nuclear war there is no third option.
edit on 11-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


YEAH!!! Nationalism!!
Oh boy!!!!!! I can't wait for Central Planning, a bigger and more bloated Federal Govt, a crush to States Rights, more Fed Agencies to assist with enforcing more Fed laws and more taxes for everyone.
Just so people feel safe and to "Save the children".
WHAT A CROCK!!!

Sorry, but the wanting of a central banking system was not part of the design of the United States of America.
The Federal Reserve wasn't created until 1913, and that has been fantastic since then.
Lost and unaccounted money, The wonderful central planning for the Economy has brought us printing money with no end, the end of the gold standard and bunches of TARP and bailout for companies. YEAH!!!!!

Sure do look forward to more, as since all the eggs are placed into one basket, all the control will go centralized to the Federal Govt, that leaves a select few and a handful of others in total control.

HURRAY. We are all saved.

No, Nationalism is not what we need. It is what the turd Obama wants and his bed fellows.
The idea that Govt is great and should be given ultimate power is the worst idea yet.

But, I don't expect anything less from someone that is scared to go out on public lands without signs warning of every and any potential danger.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You are mixing up Nationalisation with Nationalism, two different things.

I don't think a conservative such as yourself would have a problem with nationalism.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman
 


You are mixing up Nationalisation with Nationalism, two different things.

I don't think a conservative such as yourself would have a problem with nationalism.


Why do yo think that?


Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity.There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

edit on 11-12-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman
 


You are mixing up Nationalisation with Nationalism, two different things.

I don't think a conservative such as yourself would have a problem with nationalism.


And this is the nail in the coffin.


Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture.


No thanks.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class


Sure.

Anything to suck up more of our tax money and guarantee their jobs and power.

This is basically an anti-Ron Paul speech.

He's lost his effing mind.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Why? Just because it has the word 'collective' in it?
Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The past is not sacred.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

No, no they were not perfect. And no, they did not believe in slavery.


The founding fathers did not believe in slavery?
So they put a stop to it immediately or did they let it continue and even perhaps own a few?


They believed in States Rights, thus the 3/5 clause.


The states right to own slaves.
I am not sure why you "states rights" people think saying "states rights" erradicates the fact that the main right we are talking about is the one to own slaves.


They knew if they went all the way to rights for all, it would lead to the Union breaking up.
If they went against rights, then it would lead to the Union breaking up.
Please go back and understand the term 3/5 "Compromise".

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


Nothing you just wrote really has anything to do with the 3/5 compromise so I am not sure what you want me to look up and your claim that the founding fathers did not believe in slavery just makes me laugh.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Endless resources of what?
So, you are in the camp that wealth is finite, people can't make it themselves.
You are right. Stupid people *Forehead slap*, they need the Govt to do it for them. And show them how to do it, provide them everything to do it and if the dummy fails, be there it kiss the boo-boo, make it better and do it for them again, all with others people's money.


Are you serious? Do you understand waht finite resources means because by this post it seems you do not. Yes, wealth is FINITE. This post is not even a response really, it is just kind of a derrogotory grunt. How do you not get that wealth is finite? Show me an economist that would not agree that wealth is finite or even attempt to explain why you think it is infinite.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join