Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The historical ignorance of Barack Obama

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 




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.


No, that is about as wrong as you get.

People went out, got a $300k home, with an income of $80k, and took an ARM interest only loan, so they could do it right now. The economy went south, one lost their job and the 5 year ARM that they agreed to adjusted, as it described it would.
The little old lady in the shoe presentation is the biggest line of BS you could have pitched.
edit on 18-12-2011 by macman because: Grammar




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

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?



????? what is the 66%?

????? what is the 51%?

That's not the answer to the questions I was asking !!!

Did the 111th NOT pass any legislation?

Show me some positive results from legislation.

Show me some examples that have impacted you in a positive way.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
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!


Protections from what exactly?

Quote some examples and real life applications please.

Has any of this benefitted you personally?

All I got was some higher atm fees.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1



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.


Where is it written or implied that the Fed Reserve will be "nationalized" ?

Is it in the Dodd-Frank law?




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.


Is this in the Dodd-Frank law?

 


Is all this part of a secret shadow plan?

edit on Dec-18-2011 by xuenchen because:




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
our government is a criminal enterprise - no one in government has the balls to say what needs to be said - our government doesn't speak for its people - they are just window dressing - this country and our government doesn't give a d _ _ n about democracy -




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus


As the Great Depression occured 1929 the 'decade before' would obviously be the 1920's. President Harding, along with Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, cut marginal tax rates from 70% to 25% by 1925. This led to unprecedented growth as the Gross Domestic Product averaged 4.2% for the decade (using Historical Statistics of the United States, or HSUS data). There is a reason it was claled the 'Roaring Twneties'.



Year Top marginal Tax Rate for the wealthiest Americans
1917 67
1918 77
1919 73
1920 73
1921 73

Roaring Twenties begins with GDP steadily climbing until 1929

1922 56
1923 56
1924 46
1925 25
1926 25
1927 25
1928 25
1929 24

Great Depression Begins

1930 25
1931 25
1932 63

By 1932 Unemployment had risen 607% from 1929 levels. Where are the Job Creators?

1933 63

Unemployment peaks at 25%, GDP bottoms out...Recovery begins...

1934 63
1935 63
1936 79
1937 79

GDP returns to Pre-Great Depression levels and continues to climb

1938 79
1939 79
1940 81.1

GDP at record highs and continues an upward momentum from there.

1941 81
1942 88
1943 88
1944 94
1945 94




President Obama can not ignore the historical fact that tax cuts in times of economic maliase led to prosperity for all Americans


Reducing taxes on the Wealthiest Americans has consistently led to higher deficets and inflationary bubbles that quickly pop.

What is impossible to ignore amongst your insanely odd/painfully cherry-picked choosing of unemplyment numbers is that the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest, or as the GOP comedically calls them "Job Creators", have been in place the entire time our economy took the worst hit since the great depression?

Unemployment by President...




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Great Depression Begins

1930 25
1931 25
1932 63

By 1932 Unemployment had risen 607% from 1929 levels. Where are the Job Creators?


The monetarist policies employed by the Federal Reserve exacerbated the fiscal problems that stemmed from the bank runs leading into the Great Depression. There was a engineered lack of liquidity which contracted the money supply. The Real bills policy, which required all securities and currency to have material goods backing them, caused this massive drop in the money supply and led to catastrophic bank failures as the Federal Reserve refused to lend to banks that were experiencing runs.

The result of this was people, as they are doing now, hoard hard currency which does not circulate in the market place and is not able to effectively create jobs. This leads to lower consumption and even less capital driving the growth of exisiting or new businesses.

There was also massive government debt to gross domestic product rates that would not be seen again until recently. Another contributing factor was a housing bubble collapse (sound familiar?) due to over-construction. All of these compounded issues would drastically reduce the ability of business and entrepreneurs to create and sustain jobs. President Hoover's tax increases played a direct part in perpetuating the Great Depression as most saw their taxes more than double. To quote President Roosevelt:


Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors because they are a burden on production and are paid through production...If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain.


Notice the bolded part.


GDP returns to Pre-Great Depression levels and continues to climb

1938 79
1939 79
1940 81.1

GDP at record highs and continues an upward momentum from there.

1941 81
1942 88
1943 88
1944 94
1945 94


Gross domestic product did not return to pre-Depression highs until World War II. This in and of itself is a statistical anomaly created by the United States gearing up for war and actually becoming the largest consumer of goods and services. It should be noted that this was achieved by massive deficit spending which is even unmatched, adjusted for inflation, by today's standards.



Reducing taxes on the Wealthiest Americans has consistently led to higher deficets and inflationary bubbles that quickly pop.


Higher deficits are not a product of tax revenue but government spending. The United States typically ran deficits only in times of war or financial crisis. This changed after World War II and particualrly from 1960 onwards as we borrowed more and more money (from ourselves) to fund an ever increasing government. The inflationary bubbles since the Great Depression have been much milder than those that came before. The current economic malaise is no where near as precipitous as was the two post-war recessions and the late 1970's recession, let alone the Great Depression.


What is impossible to ignore amongst your insanely odd/painfully cherry-picked choosing of unemplyment numbers is that the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest, or as the GOP comedically calls them "Job Creators", have been in place the entire time our economy took the worst hit since the great depression?


The Bush Tax Cuts are not the culprit for the poor economic climate we are experiencing. As I pointed out earlier we are facing some of the very same challenges that occured prior to and during the Great Depression. Massive bank failures, housing market collapse and poor Federal Reserve monetary policy are all leading to higher unemployment. This is now coupled with what we all recognize as the global market place were we can no longer compete as effectively as we once did due to our poor fiscal policy and world-high business tax rates. It is much easier for companies to pick up their ball and move elsewhere than it is to try and deal with the rampant money-vampire that the United States government has become.



edit on 18-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Most people make under $100,000 a year and hold down a $300,000 home so this is completely redundant and irrelevant.

So to acc to you no one if they don't make at least $250,000 a year should not ever own a home right? Good way to disinfranchise people. My mom when she was working was making far less then $80,000 a year and was and still is able to hold down our $350,000 home completely shoots that claim to Hell.They got forced into taking the ARMS using deceptive business practices.

Quick to blame the people instead of where the blame should lie with and that is the banks.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


www.federalreserve.gov...

Direct from the Federal Reserve's website :
Federal Reserve Act
Section 31. Reservation of Right to Amend
1. Reservation of Right to Amend
The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.

This was already preliminary activated upon in 2007 using backchannels.

Earlier in Summer 2011 the Federal Reserve was told of and informed that the nation and the people declared a vote of "No Confidence" in their ability to end this mess. We knew QE1 and QE2 was a damn joke and have cancelled QE3 and 4 as we no That is why we are actively seeking new revenue streams currently so that we do not have to rely on them for jack squat anymore. Our overall debt of $56.4 Trillion with them will be gone soon but any debt with any foreign nation will still remain. Hence what gave rise to the global Occupy Movement. To expose the con and the lies of The Federal Reserve!

We are taking a page out of Russia's playbook and have begun to liaise with Moscow as to how Russia kicked them to the curb and us stateside are now taking pointers from them. Europe's got it's ears up, Asia has it's ears up, Africa has it's ears up, South America has it's ears up, Australia's got it's ears up and are waiting with baited breathe on what we do. A systematic and targeted takeout of the private control over the money is being planned but must be incrementally phased in on a global scale. Most estimates place it by 2025 will the world be free of private control over all of our money. That is why we are not looking to step on Russia's toes because we need them on our side and if we go for Iran that will end that partnership hence the persistence to engage Iran in war so that it puts us at odds with Russia.

12.23.1913 - 01.01.2013!
edit on 18-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
President Kennedy in his own words:


"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy



"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference



"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964



"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The JFK plan was never ended which allowed us today to continue that policy!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The JFK plan was never ended which allowed us today to continue that policy!


Nor should it be as he was correct. Now we need to get our corporate taxes inline (which are more than triple their historic lows) and reattract business and industry that fled this country and our uncompetitive tax structure.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


(To the Admins and Mods this post has total relevance to the topic at hand)

It is not uncompetitve as it ensures that the people continue to win.

That is a blatant lie like "tax cuts create jobs".

To have an attitude like that does nothing positive for our nation but have us constantly and time and time again begging The SCUM for money because there is no new income streams coming in.

They see it as uncompetitve because they can't pay people $3 a hour to work 16 hours a day with no breaks, no benefits and want to bring us back to the era before the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911.

Read up on something called the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911. Regulations went online because 146 were killed with 71 injured because of a locked door. Regulations demand and require that in a factory setting that all exit doors must remain unlocked and unblocked. Leave it to deregulation and more of these will happen. Many of the deaths were due to people breaking windows and jumping to their deaths. This also mandated that smoke alarms must be in every household and business. This demanded that fire exit doors be established with their own independent corridors (BTW, during 9/11 this regulation allowed more then 6,000 people to flee the WTC). No regulations existed prior to this and if did everyone would've gotten out alive. If that was not in play the death toll from the WTC would've been as high as 10,500! Still think regulations are evil?

Do you not know history? This is the 2nd Worst Disaster in NYC history behind 9/11.

en.wikipedia.org...

With no laws on the books and with no regulation the corporations will do whatever the flip it wants to and the second you call them out on it they say, "It's legal and we are doing it and there isn't a thing that you can do about it". Stop defending and protecting the draconian practices.

An unfortunate reality is that the people need to be protected from these scrupulous and nefarious agenda. Force their hand by blocking these draconian policies as they've conned people and continue to scam people and nations.

This is where Gov't needs to have it's claws and fangs out and be the big, bad entity that keeps these firms up at night living in fear looking over their shoulder.

So Government should just be a rubber stamper for whatever the corporations bring them and not have them allowed to ask questions? What you seek is not capitalism but a flat out dictatorship.

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK now get back on topic.
edit on 18-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Direct from the Federal Reserve's website :
Federal Reserve Act
Section 31. Reservation of Right to Amend
1. Reservation of Right to Amend
The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.

This was already preliminary activated upon in 2007 using backchannels.

Earlier in Summer 2011 the Federal Reserve was told of and informed that the nation and the people declared a vote of "No Confidence" in their ability to end this mess.

"preliminary activated" by who?
what "backchannels"?
"Told" by who?
Has this been legislated?
The FR Act was legislated by Congress .... yes/no ?
are they 'legislating' behind closed doors again?

from your link;

[Omitted from U.S. Code. Part of original Federal Reserve Act; not amended.]

what does that part mean?






We knew QE1 and QE2 was a damn joke and have cancelled QE3 and 4 as we no That is why we are actively seeking new revenue streams currently so that we do not have to rely on them for jack squat anymore.

Who are "We"?






We are taking a page out of Russia's playbook and have begun to liaise with Moscow as to how Russia kicked them to the curb and us stateside are now taking pointers from them.

Which "playbook"?






A systematic and targeted takeout of the private control over the money is being planned but must be incrementally phased in on a global scale.

planned by who?






Most estimates place it by 2025 will the world be free of private control over all of our money.

Sounds cool, but, who will control the money then, and what will it be backed by?


this all is neat, but how do "they" intend to topple TPTB?

 


edit on Dec-18-2011 by xuenchen because:




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 
I'm not an economist. I can't argue the benefits of trickle down. I wish I could.

But to be simple, the fact remains that a government, any government, that justifies itself by taking from the people they are supposed to serve, is a government that needs to be stopped.

This kenesian approach to the economy will just open the door to socialism, nationalism, more government control.



The basic with trickle down is really simple to explain:
A business buys stuff, and sells it - with a markup - to as many people as possible. That markup is collected, and concentrated in the investor.
This part is perfectly OK, because running a business means carrying the risk of failure, so if there wasn't the reward of getting to keep the markup, nobody would be willing to face the risk.
And that's the problem with "trickle down" - it got the direction wrong. Money trickles up, not down. And somebody needs to skim it off from the top, and stuff it back into the bottom, so it can trickle up again, and give the rakers something to rake in again.

There is only one institution known to man that can do that.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


Most people make under $100,000 a year and hold down a $300,000 home so this is completely redundant and irrelevant.

So to acc to you no one if they don't make at least $250,000 a year should not ever own a home right? Good way to disinfranchise people. My mom when she was working was making far less then $80,000 a year and was and still is able to hold down our $350,000 home completely shoots that claim to Hell.They got forced into taking the ARMS using deceptive business practices.

Quick to blame the people instead of where the blame should lie with and that is the banks.


Yep, nothing like pitching to people the idea that if they want it, the Govt will make others give it to them,.

They got forced? Really, so there was arm twisting and a gun to the head?
Give me a break.
Your BS quotes really hold no weight anymore. You have proven this 10 fold with statements of secret meetings with Ron Paul and payments of sex and so on.
So, with you, the statement of "Proof or it didn't happen" rings truest.
Until then, your statement is BS.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Comparing boom/bust cycles vs tax rates is largely a futile exercise.

First thing forgotten is that the current tax rate is representative of the previous years not the current or upcoming years until very recently (past 5-10 years). Projection forecasting is a largely new game and is already being phased out by the rational financial advisors.

Second thing forgotten is that the US is not alone and, contrary to common belief, the world markets do not hinge on your top 5% tax rates.

If it was as simple as adjust taxes on top 5% in the US to move markets how wished, we would never see excessive growth or decline.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
It is not uncompetitve as it ensures that the people continue to win.


If it is so conducive to business than why does more manufacturing and industry move to lower taxed markets? We are at the top in corporate taxes in the world. There is no incentive to relocate industry to the United States until this is addressed.


That is a blatant lie like "tax cuts create jobs".


Did you read President Kennedy's quotes? I suppose he was lying as well?


To have an attitude like that does nothing positive for our nation but have us constantly and time and time again begging The SCUM for money because there is no new income streams coming in.


We borrow money because we SPEND too much.


Read up on something called the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911.

...

Do you not know history? This is the 2nd Worst Disaster in NYC history behind 9/11.


I am aware of this because 1) I learned about this in junior high and 2) you mention it in nearly every thread you post in. It is however totally irrelevant to the discussion as I am not refering to regulations but tax cuts. People with a modicum of reading comprehension will have already grasped this fact.


Hook, line, sinker, SUNK now get back on topic.


It is always good to have an idiotic catch-phrase when one is projecting about being off-topic. Remember, the thread is about President Obama's ignorance to United States economic history, not your obession with the Triangle Fire. Address the topic.


edit on 19-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


So let's just not have the rich pay any taxes, delete all corporate taxes, delete all regulations, kill unions, force people to work sweatshop hours for sweatshop pay, no breaks, no nothing, and if you're late once for whatever reason you are fired is your bright idea to spur on business domestically is your bright idea? Not a flipping chance.

The Triangle deal I keep on bringing up because it has total relevance and the entire douchewads want to bring the nation back to that era.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


So let's just not have the rich pay any taxes, delete all corporate taxes, delete all regulations, kill unions, force people to work sweatshop hours for sweatshop pay, no breaks, no nothing, and if you're late once for whatever reason you are fired is your bright idea to spur on business domestically is your bright idea? Not a flipping chance.

The Triangle deal I keep on bringing up because it has total relevance and the entire douchewads want to bring the nation back to that era.





Yep

That's the master plan. Sweat shops, horrific workplace fires and so on.
Don't forget putting 4 year olds to work in the coal mines. Those tiny hands will be able to fit into some small spaces. Not to mention the lower use of oxygen for their still forming lungs.

As always, you are clueless and a joke.
edit on 19-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join