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 Has Increased Debt $5T

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 





Cloward-Piven


It was also FDR's plan! Look at the hell it brought us decades after! The strongest middle class in the history of the world.
edit on 22-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Here is an interesting thing:


The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
“ The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3] ”


Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]


Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5]
The Strategy



Here is Obama's "Strategy" for a balanced budget:



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 





Cloward-Piven


It was also FDR's plan! Look at the hell it brought us decades after!


FDR ?

Could be.

Are there any writings on that ?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





FDR ? Could be. Are there any writings on that ?


Yeah, this one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


You can blame conservatives all you want. The point is government (not R or D ) is winning.

And we are losing,



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
This isn't Obama's fault!

This is OUR debt!

We were the ones that became so brainwashed and complacent that we voted in these slimeballs into the White House and Congress! Every president for the past 60 years and every congress since the early 1900's has had a hand in the policy that allows our representatives the opportunity to do what they are doing!

To call this Obama's debt really means that you have no clue what's really going on here!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




What Part of the $5Trillion has helped YOU ?


Building Industry got zero. No Obama Money For Me.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


This one is just for you




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Anyone else notice how ATS went from blaming everyhting on Bush (they still do), to claiming NOTHING is Obama's fault? For people who have free minds, you all sure do repeat the MSM/White House talking points to a tee.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This isn't Obama's fault!


Oh, of course not. But just a few years ago:





Amazing the difference a (D) makes. Remember folks, nothing is Obama's fault. The media and the white house say so!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Obama himself said before being elected, that the debt is dangerous and that there should be less spending.
But as Bush, they really ain't in control. They got their advisers and so on. The increase in debt is important for economy growth, so they are somewhat successful in that but when things go really wrong, and the interest rates get much higher, no way they can repay the debt.



Amazing though how fast the debt increased in such a short time period.


edit on 23-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
let get something straight, no president I mean NO president be Republicrat or democrap can stop the national deficit, as the government has to keep working and that means money to support everything that they do

The deficit will keep increasing regardless of what promises the whores running for the white house tell the hopeful voters.

So with that said guess what, the next president will just keep increasing the nation debt until America just falls into debt oblivion.

When you have the Federal government denying assistance to victims of natural disasters in America but have no problem funding aid to other nations because of the private interest in war, you know that our nations priority are not within the well being of the citizens but those of private interest



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


This site shows the President elect fact sheet of promises to fix the economy

Barack Obama on Budget & Economy
Junior Senator (IL); President-Elect 2008

www.ontheissues.org...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
let get something straight, no president I mean NO president be Republicrat or democrap can stop the national deficit, as the government has to keep working and that means money to support everything that they do

The deficit will keep increasing regardless of what promises the whores running for the white house tell the hopeful voters.



That's hooey, the deficit was stemmed in the 90's

The reason the deficits are out of control now is because the governments revue has been
slashed by providing tax cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires. At the same time spending has not be
cut enough to meet government spending. Not to mention Two very costly wars... When there
is a disparity between income and expenditure, well you get it.

The deficit is largely by design, its not voodoo

ETA

this little period is more expensive because Keynesians are trying to replace private output
with government output due to the overall lack of spending and liquidity
edit on 23-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


Do you have a firm understanding on how economics and public policy works?

First of all, Obama walked into office with the economy going down at a fast pace. It was the actions of congress before he came into office that began this problem.

Second, congress passes the spending bills. So what exactly does Obama have to do with it?

Sure Obama is just as much to blame as the rest of Washington, but to place the entire Blame on him shows a lack of understanding on how things really work.

We can stand here, point fingers at Obama and feel better about ourselves but it does nothing to change the problem or hold the REAL culprits accountable.

Why can't we have a discussion about the issues without the moronic anti-Obama crowd salivating over another chance to blame the wrong guy? It's almost as if their......brainwashed.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! the only reason the "deficit" looked like it got "better" in the 90s and Democrap took the credit is because Clinton tap in the SS surplus and America were not fighting any wars under him, or started any, the persian war started in 1991 and ended the same year, now US support two countries after war.

Clinton was smart but at the same time may have help screw the SS, still he didn't have a war to fight or support during his years in the white House, he did increased the tax on the rich but the reason the stock market was so successful (even my husband won during those years) was because the dot-com bubble, that increased revenues on taxes that were not counted for, at the end the bubble burst creating and economy mess during the first year of Bush Jr administration, what Bush did to help his rich cronies? he gave them tax brakes.

So actually the Clinton years of economic recovery were nothing but an illusion of prosperity. The nation was already deteriorating and got worse under Bush as the markets really didn't recuperated after the Dot-com bubble and two wars made the matters worst, then another crash in the markets and we are to pay for the mistakes of those on the top for years to come.






edit on 23-3-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
He inherited a trillion a year deficit when he walked into office....during economic collapse.

What should he have done eh?

CUT ALL SPENDING AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS while the economy spun out of control?



So when Bush was in office all economic woes were his fault. Now Obama has been in office for nearly FOUR YEARS and all the economic woes are.... Bush's fault. 4 years is PLENTY of time to turn things around and blaming the current economy on the previous administration is just blind ignorance. Obama made multiple promises on behalf of his administration that they would turn our economy around during his first term and he specifically promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term:



Instead the deficit has ballooned another 5 TRILLION dollars on his administration's watch. And you're defending him? Seriously? That's just willful ignorance.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Obama himself said before being elected, that the debt is dangerous and that there should be less spending.
But as Bush, they really ain't in control. They got their advisers and so on. The increase in debt is important for economy growth, so they are somewhat successful in that but when things go really wrong, and the interest rates get much higher, no way they can repay the debt.



Amazing though how fast the debt increased in such a short time period.


edit on 23-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)


It increased at a lesser rate than the previous 4 years.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Does it really matter who's to blame anymore? That useless bit of knowledge doesn't fix the problem.
My question is this; who is still loaning us money? We're currently 65 trillion dollars in the hole. There's only 47 trillion dollars in the whole world combined. Which means we now owe 18 trillion more than the networth of every country on the planet.





Does anyone else think it's time for a reboot?



edit on 23-3-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! America were not fighting any wars under him, or started any, the persian war started in 1991 and ended the same year,





But I'm wrong???


Did you read my post?

Economics are illusory my friendette, there are bubbles every ten years going back to
our founding.
edit on 23-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join