The historical ignorance of Barack Obama

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Unprecedented growth lead on by massive deregulation which allowed the market to go south after The SCUM tanked the stock market in 1907 which is where this entire mess then rooted form. The Panic of 1907 coupled with the privatization of the money via the creation of The Federal Reserve in 1913 led directly to the deregulation of the market.

They want this century to be a carbon copy of the last!

The Panic of 1907 :
en.wikipedia.org...

Read something and actually learn something. The 1907 crash created the domino effect that took until 1929 to see to completion. Just like how the 1987 stock market crash with massive deregulation led to 2008. Notice a pattern here? Within 25 years of a panic there is a massive crash and both were led and spearheaded by the same exact group.

Couple that with the Wall Street Bombing of 1920 that killed 28 and wounded 143 and was the worst act of terrorism on US soil until the 1995 Oaklahoma City Bombing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sound familiar? The Times Square car bomb of 2010
en.wikipedia.org...

All the same group!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Do you know how to answer a question? I asked several which you conveniently avoided.

Reposted since you obviosuly missed these:

If it did not work, as the President claimed, what, in your opinion, led to the rapid increase of gross domestic product and the equally rapid decline in unemployment? Additionally, if this was a unsound fiscal policy why did President Kennedy (d) employ the same fiscal policy and why did it have the same positive economic impact?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Because I am not giving you the answer you want is the reason for this and have avoided nothing. I'm giving you a history lesson how The SCUM will commit acts of technical and financial terrorism in order to get what they want. As well as their ability to plant a bomb to scare the nation into forcing a deregulation. The politics of fear they've been engaging us in for as long as this nation has been around.

Threaten to bomb the nation and the nation backs down.

They thought they could use JFK to do and pass whatever they want but when he grew a brain he got 3 in the skull.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Rhetoric and hyperbole do not explain how gross domestic product went up and unemployment went down after both republican and democratic presidents employed the same fiscal policy. If you are unable to engage in an intellectual debate and need to constantly resort to poltical demagoguery you are arguing with the wrong person. The only thing I will continue to ask you is to post refuting evidence which you have sadly failed to produce.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Because everyone and their mother who wanted a job could get one, costs were extremely low. Unions had strength, Employees had strength, regulations had strength. Cost of living pretty well remained flat allowing for prosperity. In 1948 a Ford F1 Pickup cost $1,450 and by comparison a 1969 Ford F100 had an msrp of $2.393 which meant that business owners costs were flat or rose at a very small fraction year after year and wasn't until the 1980's when the wholesale gouging of America started as a 1985 Ford F150 was $11,701! Inflation coupled with rising costs in raw materials led to the outsourcing. The systematic deregulation of the market started again in 1984 that single handedly led to and set the stage for the 2008 crash to occur!

Let's look at the history of the 111th Congress (2009/2010)

The Senate had about a 58% Dem majority.

The House had about a 58% Dem majority.

The White House had a 100% Dem majority.

It seems however, that the majority of all legislation has/had a negative impact on the majority of citizens and of course, a negative impact on voters.

Especially financial.

They had the opportunity of a lifetime to reverse the problems.

If anything was good and positive for the majority, where is it showing now?

We can all see the long lasting negatives.


The legislation is in these links.

Can someone point out and explain the details of the positives for the majority of U.S. citizens?
(if any ...)


111th United States Congress


Acts of the 111th United States Congress

reply to post by xuenchen


The most important piece of legislation in nearly 80 years :

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The most important piece of legislation in nearly 80 years :

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
en.wikipedia.org...

Details please,

How does that (or any parts) make a positive impact on the majority of citizens?

reply to post by xuenchen


Orders protections from banks, Wall Street, nefarious lending agencies, protection from credit card companies.

The benefit to the people should be self evident!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Those 23 Million jobs added have more then been erased and them some since 43 got into office and with Obama he's been working to try to get jobs back.

Obama didn't focus on jobs when he should have. He wasted a whole year-and-a-half!!! Since Obama's been in office we've still lost more jobs than we've gained. Of course, Obama won't tell you that. He'll tell that we've gained 2 million jobs of which 25% of them were temporary census workers, but he wouldn't tell you that either. You want to see manipulated data? Just look at the "Employment Situation" reports.

Don't even get me started on how throwing federal money at green jobs only hurt the industry and the employment situation instead of helping it. Once again, throwing money in the wrong direction when he does do it.

This fleecing of America which was the entire point of the speech from Kansas and what it was about.

I'm not going to lie. This was a great speech. I read the whole thing. Unfortunately, it's the only thing he's good at. I just wish Obama would try harder to do something about it. You're lying to yourself if you don't think that Obama hasn't entirely given up and has made campaigning his new job.

In all honesty, I think Obama means well. I think he really wants to make a difference and a change, but he doesn't know how to implement it. On top of that, it looks bad that he wasted so much time and money on Obamacare when the majority didn't want it. It looks like he was more concerned at the time of pushing legislation through that Bill and Hillary Clinton couldn't in order to make a name for himself and one up them.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The most important piece of legislation in nearly 80 years :

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
en.wikipedia.org...

Help me to understand something. This law was passed 17 months ago and they only have 25% of it implemented. Obama is blaming it on Republicans, but how does one go about holding up implementing this law? I can understand how Obamacare is being held up by funding, but what's holding up the creation of financial regulations? This is another one of those things that royally ticks me off. Why isn't the wording of these regulations figured out before they claim a law has been passed? Why isn't there a full functional plan before something goes to a freaking vote? It's like we're passing ideas as laws before we know how they're going to work!

reply to post by Deetermined


We are waiting for one thing to occur before the next round of implementation goes live and that is the end of private control over The Federal Reserve which becomes nationalized effective Jan 01 2013 so another like 55 or so weeks we must wait to prevent it from being circumvented or sidestepped. Hence why no major actions are being done now to ensure that we retake control over our coin. A level of secrecy is being needed in order to ensure that this plan goes through, hence the choppy answers.

Once that becomes active Round 2 of this plan goes into effect. Total reimplementation of all regulations that were systematically undone of all regulations. By 2017 timeframe full implementation goes into effect. Nothing will stop this as this is permanent. No act of any future Congress can ever undo this ever! This is a 10 year plan that started in 2007.

Please do me one favour and stop using the term Obamacare as it is offensive and call it for what is really is, Healthcare reform act.

Sometime by the 2014-2015 timeframe the new US currency is rolled out deleting the phrase "Federal Reserve Note" from the top observe side of the bill as the end of The SCUM's reach into our nation is drawing to a close.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Because everyone and their mother who wanted a job could get one...

Exactly. And why do you think there was an abundance of jobs available? How did productivity rise in relation to this fact?

Cost of living pretty well remained flat allowing for prosperity. In 1948 a Ford F1 Pickup cost $1,450 and by comparison a 1969 Ford F100 had an msrp of $2.393 which meant that business owners costs were flat or rose at a very small fraction year after year and wasn't until the 1980's when the wholesale gouging of America started as a 1985 Ford F150 was $11,701!

Your lack of understadning of United States economic history is as poor as the President's. The two contributing factors to the spike in costs of goods and services was the Bretton-Woods act taking the United States off the gold standard and the oil embargoes of the 1970's. These led to hyperinflationary economies as the raw goods needed to produce and sustain the economy simultaneously became scarer as the value of the dollar became lower. It is a situation which we still deal with today.

The solution is quite simple, developing more domestic sources of energy and relinking the dollar to gold. This however has nothing to do with my Original Post which deals with the President's pathetic grasp of economic history.

Inflation coupled with rising costs in raw materials led to the outsourcing.

Uncompetitiveness leads to outsourcing. You outsource every time you shop; do you buy a soda from the store that sells it for $1.00 or walk across the street to his competitor and pay $1.50? We live in a global market place were the United States has become uncompetitive compared to other countries, particularly in heavy industry. How do you propose to reattract these jobs which have gone to other markets?

The systematic deregulation of the market started again in 1984 that single handedly led to and set the stage for the 2008 crash to occur!

The mortgae/housing deregulation began in the 1970's and continued under every administration until the situation became untenable. The problem was too many loans to unqualified buyers from too many lenders looking to exploit the loopholes in the system. The main loophole being that the United States government, in its infinitely retarded wisdom, decided to guarantee these mortgages. Greedy people stood with their hands out and greedy lenders knew that if these mortgages went south they would not be on the hook. Big governement strikes again.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The Ford F Series prices were to show you as an example of how the cost of goods rose. I know more about US economics then most and have an excellent understanding in how it works.

How would I bring jobs back, simple, quadruple the tax rate on any company who is headquartered stateside who outsource and delete the subsidies they get to outsource. Maintain the tax rate but raise as high as twice to those who will employ Americans in America. Delete subsides to Big Oil. Delete tax cuts for the rich as they do not create jobs. Delete the practice of gouging Govt.

The FDIC insures any loan for a new home for up to $200,000 The problem with the mortgage mess rooted from the fact that a couple who wanted to buy a home had a good paying job couple that with say they have to pay a $500 mortgage and were budgeting for that each and every month but after about 2 yrs doubled to $1,000 which after another month spiked to $3,000 when the lipper reset meaning you were anticipating a $500 a month mortgage payment that sextupled to $3,000 means your budget is shot to hell which forced alot of homeowners to either walk away or be underwater.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Let's look at the history of the 111th Congress (2009/2010)

The Senate had about a 58% Dem majority.

The House had about a 58% Dem majority.

The White House had a 100% Dem majority.

It seems however, that the majority of all legislation has/had a negative impact on the majority of citizens and of course, a negative impact on voters.

Especially financial.

They had the opportunity of a lifetime to reverse the problems.

If anything was good and positive for the majority, where is it showing now?

We can all see the long lasting negatives.


The legislation is in these links.

Can someone point out and explain the details of the positives for the majority of U.S. citizens?
(if any ...)


111th United States Congress


Acts of the 111th United States Congress

Yeah but when you need a 66% majority, not 51% that changes things, right?

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
That 57 breaks down into 50 states and 7 territories and can bet without looking anywhere on the web that you can't name them.

There are actually five United States Territories and eleven Pacific islands. Maybe you should have checked the web first yourself.

here we are arguing about obama - he speaks both out his mount and his bottom at the same time - he's been selling hope just to keep folks on his side - he's a liar - doesn't even know how many states in our republic - and another thing - if people would realize the "United States of America" is not a country but a federal corporation - you might understand -

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The Ford F Series prices were to show you as an example of how the cost of goods rose.

An example of goods rising in price is not an explanation of why goods rise in pricing. The cause is the issue, which still remains unaddressed.

How would I bring jobs back, simple, quadruple the tax rate on any company who is headquartered stateside who outsource and delete the subsidies they get to outsource.

And what would then stop these companies from relocating their headquarters to another market and continue to manufacture outside the United States?

Maintain the tax rate but raise as high as twice to those who will employ Americans in America.

See the above remark.

To use my soda analogy again; if I forced you to go across the street and buy the $1.50 soda would you still want to buy it?

Delete subsides to Big Oil.

There should not be government subsidies for any one at any time. Government should not be involved in picking winners or loosers based on politcal winds and ideology.

Delete tax cuts for the rich as they do not create jobs.

President Kennedy would have disagreed with you.

Delete the practice of gouging Govt.

The goverment would not get 'gouged' if it was not invloved in business. The lack of govermental oversight of itself is a major part of the fiscal problem we currently are experiencing.

The FDIC insures any loan for a new home for up to $200,000 The problem with the mortgage mess rooted from the fact that a couple who wanted to buy a home had a good paying job couple that with say they have to pay a $500 mortgage and were budgeting for that each and every month but after about 2 yrs doubled to $1,000 which after another month spiked to $3,000 when the lipper reset meaning you were anticipating a $500 a month mortgage payment that sextupled to $3,000 means your budget is shot to hell which forced alot of homeowners to either walk away or be underwater.

Nobody makes you sign mortage papers. If these mullet-heads did not understand their loan documents then they really need to have a heart to heart with their realestate attorney. It always seems to be someone else's fault, personal responsibilty and common sense continue to fall by the wayside.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Yeah but when you need a 66% majority, not 51% that changes things, right?

The Senate needs a 60% majority to impede fillibusters, not 66% and they had that 60% with the independents that caucused with the democrats.

i hope this video loads - it's under 5 minutes - says it all