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 wanting debt limit hike with no cuts ‘almost took my breath away’

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I am about as likely to vote for Romney as I am Obama. Same plays, different playbook.




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


History proves that Democrats got the version of it they wanted. Both parties had plans on the table. Just check wikipedia for details.
However, I would like to mention that the Fed and the CFR are comprised of members of both parties, so please do not be deceived by the idea that Democrats really love the little people and are helping them live better lives. What they are helping them do is go further and further into debt for the spending policies of the Federal Govt. By using the Fed Reserve as an unlimited spending source, we as taxpayers and US citizens are being made responsible for all the irresponsible policies of a govt gone wild.


Are you talking about the repeal of Glass Steagall?

YES the Democrats in the House inserted a Work place Privacy portion of the bill,
while the GOP constructed the portion which created the mortgage backed speculative
market.

The damn thing passed the Senate with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voting FOR it...

This entire model of economic speculation originated with conservative "free market" deregulation.

Why can't you match up what you guys preach and what was installed? They are one in the same



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


The repubs like to "deregulate" because they have plans to take it over... Same happened with deregulation of the media clearing the way for FOX News.. And thanks to them we are stuck with the opinion, propaganda full media we have today.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


It was based on a plan by Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich... Dont let him trick you because Wilson signed it in..


Please see my post about how different versions of the Fed Reserve Act were floated at that time. Are you really going to tell me that Obama and his merry band of Robin Hoods aren't leaching the taxpayers for all they got using the Fed Reserve system to borrow indefinitely for *&)^) we can't afford? Give it up buddy.


The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including the Aldrich bill.[6] However, unlike the Aldrich plan, which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave an important role to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, while establishing a substantial measure of autonomy for the (regional) Reserve Banks which, at that time, were allowed to set their own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the earlier opposition to the proposed reserve system from Progressive Democrats was largely assuaged; instead, opposition to the bill came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the Democrats.[1]



The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting for the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions.[8]


en.wikipedia.org...

So go back and read real history before blathering on with a bunch of baloney.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 

Nope, I am talking about the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. I've BEEN talking about the FED the entire time. You diverted it into Glass Steagall because that is the rote argument Progressives have been making since Team Obama and his Robin Hoods got in.

But since you brought up Glass-Steagall

Glass also wanted Federal Reserve supervision of all banks under a “unified banking system.”[51] Glass stated “the curse of the banking system for this country is the dual system” under which states could charter banks that were supervised by state officials outside the Federal Reserve System.[52] Under the Federal Reserve Act, all national banks were required to be members of the Federal Reserve System, but state chartered banks could choose whether to join.[53] Glass and others concluded that this had led to a “competition in laxity” between regulators of member and non-member banks.[54]




The final Senate version of H.R. 5661 included Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s (R-MI) amendment providing for an immediate temporary fund to insure fully deposits up to $2,500 before the FDIC began operating on July 1, 1934. The “Vandenberg Amendment” was added to the Senate bill through a procedural maneuver supported by Vice President John Nance Garner, who was presiding over the Senate in a judicial impeachment proceeding. This highlighted the differences between Garner and Roosevelt on the controversial issue of deposit insurance.[79]


Roosevelt threatened to veto any bill that included the Vandenberg Amendment’s provision for immediate deposit insurance.[80] On June 7, however, Roosevelt indicated to Glass he would accept a compromise in which permanent FDIC insurance would not begin until July 1934, the limited temporary plan would begin on January 1, 1934, and state banks could be insured so long as they joined the Federal Reserve System by 1936.[81] Roosevelt, like Glass, saw redeeming value in deposit insurance if its requirement for Federal Reserve System membership led to “unifying the banking system.”[82]



Time Magazine reported the 1933 Banking Act passed by “accident because a Presidential blunder kept Congress in session four days longer than expected.”[88] H. Parker Willis described Roosevelt as treating the final bill with “indifference” but not “hostility.[89]


In his account of the “First New Deal” Raymond Moley stated Roosevelt was “sympathetic” to the 1933 Banking Act “but had no active part in pressing for its passage.” Moley also wrote that most of “the people who were close to the White House were so busy with their own legislative programs that Glass was left to his own devices.”[90]


Adolf A. Berle, like Moley a member of Roosevelt’s First New Deal Brain Trust, was “disappointed” by the 1933 Banking Act.[91] He wished the more extensive branch banking permission in earlier Glass bills had been adopted. Berle concluded that limited branch banking with deposit insurance would preserve small banks certain to fail in an economic downturn, as they had consistently in the past. While Berle shared Glass’s hope that the new law’s deposit insurance provisions would force all banks into the Federal Reserve System, he correctly feared that future Congresses would remove this requirement.[92]


en.wikipedia.org...

So there you have it. Glass-Steagall called for all banks to be required to join the Federal Reserve


edit on 19-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Stop lying

The left owns it

en.wikipedia.org...

Democrats majority in the house and senate and the presidency

Bush owns the Patriot Act for the same reason the left owns the Federal Reserve act the buck stops with the one who signs it in to law.

edit on 19-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think you are right.
This is #ing dumb. They really want us to take to the streets and they are setting us up to do it for a reason I think.

And anyone here knows, even the really conservative posters here, even you beezer, I am a fair dude and I even gave Obama a few chances. Last year I supported the debt ceiling hike because it appeared to be a way to pin a collapse on one party. I was ok with it because I was giving Obama a chance. Not this time he has had his chance.

We need to get RP in office. We need to continue taking over these conventions and support the RP people when they take over the convention through delegates. If they act boldly in Tampa we need to support them and be vocal about it.
edit on 19-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by artnut
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I come from a family of business owners, am self-employed, and understand about running a business, I just don't subscribe to your idea of running a business, or an economy, I don't find it logical.


So you think it is logical to cut the amount of money in the economy when there is already a lack
of it? I think you are confusing the model here, cutting the amount of income your business
generates, is not a way to generate more profit. Reducing the amount of money in the economy
now, will only reduce the amount of commerce, which will reduce hours and create more
contraction.

Can your small businesses do better if you cut the amount of money your customers have to spend?

Let's be logical - if America cuts unemployment entitlement right now, who is going to
buy the stuff that businesses sell??? It is not a magical question... the answer is
less people, which will reduce hours, which will result in businesses closing down...

Can't you see the logic in that?




Political affiliation does not cloud anything here. Part of raising the debt ceiling involves the need to keep paying for entitlement programs I do not agree with, hence the anger at raising it and paying high taxes. My Stepfather was at the social security office a few months applying to recieve his social security (not entitlement, because he is at the retirement age, so he is applying for something he paid into), and he told me when he walked in the room, he thought he was in the wrong place because he only saw a few "older folks". So what is wrong with this picture? It is interesting that you are advising me not to be "clouded," after seeing the user name and various comments you have made about republicans/conservatives. I honestly think the whole of congress needs to be thrown out, I don't care what political party they are a part of. I am fiscally conservative, but believe most people should be allowed to think and do whatever they want in their own home. I just don't want to pay for whatever they do.


It is anger that can cloud your logic - and it is easy to present a simple picture to you
and manipulate your emotions to get you to react. The picture is not that simple, that
is my point - you cut spending now, which is what the simple picture says, you will
ALSO cut the economic activity at the same time which is not included in that simple
picture.

Do you understand?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm talking real austerity.

End Dept. Homeland Security
End Dept. of Education (send it back to the states)
Bring all troops home.
End foreign aid.
End Dept. Health Human Services (individual states).


Off the top of my head, THERE'S your austerity!!!


Beezzer for President 2012




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Stop lying

The left owns it

en.wikipedia.org...

Democrats majority in the house and senate and the presidency


So Texas, Mississippi, Georgia are liberal states Neo?


Did you notice that the states with Democratic senators are all conservative states Neo?

Did you notice that CALIFORNIA was a Republican State, Neo?



You going back nearly 100 years is pretty cool Neo,

I see you can't accept that 100% of the GOP voted to repeal Glass Steagall and
unleash the banks on the world. You can't stand that it is born of what you represent...

All the conservative states in the south and midwest were the ones who voted for
the FED too.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


The repubs like to "deregulate" because they have plans to take it over... Same happened with deregulation of the media clearing the way for FOX News.. And thanks to them we are stuck with the opinion, propaganda full media we have today.


Thank god they are old and dying off -

Lets hope they fail to make the banks the ruler of the world

I am surprised that they wouldn't just elect Bank Of America already for POTUS



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Yeah i noticed that for the last 3 and half years no republican bill has ever passed the senate and to sit there and flat out LIE and try to blame the right.

Wshington DC has not changed in over 200 years.

Have it your way the the Patriot Act was not Bush's fault.

Only have to go back to the 90s and see who cause the financial crisis and that would be the left and BILL CLINTON.


edit on 19-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think you are right.
This is #ing dumb. They really want us to take to the streets and they are setting us up to do it for a reason I think.

And anyone here knows, even the really conservative posters here, even you beezer, I am a fair dude and I even gave Obama a few chances. Last year I supported the debt ceiling hike because it appeared to be a way to pin a collapse on one party. I was ok with it because I was giving Obama a chance. Not this time he has had his chance.



They are still employing the same tactic

They have worn you down by design - you cut economic circulation now and we go
back into the hole. We can cut when the economy has reached its standard output capacity.

It's too bad it is too easy to rig perceptions that way



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I think he forgets that 'Super committee' which the Republican "Party of No" members obstructed for the last year.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You notice they keep sneaking in provisions that have to do with Republican ideals like Abortion into bills that have nothing to do with those issues... Right? You do notice that almost everything the House does far, far right with no attempt to work with the senate, Right?
edit on 19-5-2012 by Resurected because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Yeah i noticed that for the last 3 and half years no republican bill has ever passed the senate and to sit there and flat out LIE and try to blame the right.

Wshington DC has not changed in over 200 years.

Have it your way the the Patriot Act was not Bush's fault.

Only have to go back to the 90s and see who cause the financial crisis and that would be the left and BILL CLINTON.


edit on 19-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




OK Neo, so letting the banks trade and securitize trillions in fake money didn't do it?


Mitt Romney is out there dropping Bill Clintons name everyday too, sad to be you man


The history books will read "Conservative America, in an act of free market deregulation,
allowed the banks to trade and insure fiat currency by injecting that currency into real estate
and then extracting real money by selling the risk they created."

I'm telling you guys,read my signature, the sad thing is you play yourselves and get used
like cheap whores.

Oh and how do you like the fact that the GOP blocked the repeal of NDAA?

So much for liberty and small government



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I think he forgets that 'Super committee' which the Republican "Party of No" members obstructed for the last year.


He knows it all, he is in denial that his ideas create the things that he claims to hate.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


It was based on a plan by Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich... Dont let him trick you because Wilson signed it in..


Please see my post about how different versions of the Fed Reserve Act were floated at that time. Are you really going to tell me that Obama and his merry band of Robin Hoods aren't leaching the taxpayers for all they got using the Fed Reserve system to borrow indefinitely for *&)^) we can't afford? Give it up buddy.


The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including the Aldrich bill.[6] However, unlike the Aldrich plan, which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave an important role to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, while establishing a substantial measure of autonomy for the (regional) Reserve Banks which, at that time, were allowed to set their own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the earlier opposition to the proposed reserve system from Progressive Democrats was largely assuaged; instead, opposition to the bill came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the Democrats.[1]



The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting for the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions.[8]


en.wikipedia.org...

So go back and read real history before blathering on with a bunch of baloney.


Did you notice that the States with Democratic Senators in 1913 are CONSERVATIVE States?


You can't stand that conservatism has become the public enforcer for the banks and the elite.

They block all attempts to put the genie back into the bottle TODAY -

so keep referencing century old history and keep denying that CONSERVATIVE states
had DEMOCRATIC senators in 1913 -

"We need to keep regulation low to protect the business creators!"


You guys are all so full of crap



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Did you know that avatar reminds people of Private Pyle from Full Metal Jacket?

And agreed

Someone is full of crap



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I do understand, and I don't want your version of economics. I get that people in entitlement programs spend a certain amount, and I get that if you take that away, you think the economy will suffer. How did communities ever prosper without Keynesian ecomonomics!

People used to take care of themselves, where is the pride? What you don't understand, is that like a lot of others, I don't care if the economy suffers from this particular problem. Paying for other people to sit on their butts all day is not a principle I believe in, no matter how many numbers you present. At the age I am at, I am learning to appreciate what I have, and live with less. If the economy tanks, even if my family is jobless, our entire family will band together, and we will survive. Luckily I am married to a retired military man with survivalist skills, we will be fine. And, we will be happy learning to live with what we have. I don't want your version of massive government running this economy, not to mention, your methods have never worked in other countries.

You seem like a smart person, so what I am puzzled by, is why you are so subscribed to left-leaning policy? You denigrate republicans, but seem to think that liberal policy is the end all. Why so entrenched in party affliliation? Surely you can see that the people in power, including Obama, including Romney, Bush, whoever, are only concerned with maintaining said power? To me, to be so subscribed, is to lose credibility.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join