It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can Obama Seduce Young Voters While Robbing Them Blind? Again?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:49 PM
Funny how all those posts pretend the debt increase is the result of reckless spending when on a % basis Obama increased the budget by less than the previous 6 presidents. There's 2 sides to the ledger, spending (which they whine about), and income (aka taxes...and loop holes...and a dwindling economy decreasing that part of the ledger).

Funny how they always ignore one side of the ledger

Oh, and let's not forget who curbed student loan rate hikes

It all doesn't matter either way because the latino voter block is now so large, they are a key voter segment you NEED to win...and we all know how well Romney scores with latinos

The only way the GOP can go up against that is by making it as hard as possible for poor and non-whites to vote...which they are trying really hard.
edit on 31-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:49 PM
It depends on how he runs his show. It's hard to argue debt with young people cause they aren't dumb people(well not all of them anyway). They do remember what happened the last time a Republican was in office. They don't have much of a leg to stand on as far as that is concerned. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by MrXYZ

Funny how the other side ignores Obama's deficit spending and the fact that they like to forget FY2009 and try to push it all back on Bush. Bush only signed 3 of the 12 appropriation Bills for FY 2009. Granted, I certainly hold Bush to the flame for his ridiculous spending in his last two years too!! Those were rough times, 2008 meltdown, TARP, AIG Bailout, govt. sponsorship of Fannie and Freddie...

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn't even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn't the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.

Funny how people forget about the results of the 2010 midterms and its impact on Congress....

Maybe we can agree on this??

The right point of focus is not at what pace spending has grown under President Obama but instead how much more he needs to cut spending from its bloated levels to bring the economy back to health. The huge increase in spending as a percentage of GDP under Presidents Bush and Obama is the reason we are experiencing the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. As Milton Friedman understood, an economy cannot spend or tax itself into prosperity.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by jibeho

1) The auto bailouts actually worked!

2) Without bailouts we would be worse off, and more people would now be unemployed. Why is that? Because even though banks aren't lending easily now, without the bailouts those banks would be no more...which would harm economic growth even more than it already does. You're also ignoring the FACT that large parts of those bailouts have been paid back.

3) You want to attribute Obamacare that doesn't even kick in until 2014 in 2009?

4) A large part of the spending...WAY more than the bailouts was the result of DEFENSE SPENDING. Defence spending due to wars BUSH got us into.

5) The GOP didin't agree with $150b of Democrat spending? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Compared to the total budget that's a TINY fraction

6) Companies paid RECORD LOW taxes ever since Bush (and even less under Obama) took office. Of course that harms the budget ledger because income (aka taxes) gets wiped out. So of course the deficit will increase.

Just so you know, the largest single-policy contributor to the deficit are the Bush tax cuts. Which is incredibly ironic given that trickle down economics CLEARLY don't work

In short, as much as disagree with a lot of Obama's policies (indefinite detentions, not closing Gitmo, etc.), claiming he is mostly responsible for the budget deficit is ridiculous...especially given that we're in an economic crisis. Check out what happens to the deficit every time we enter a crisis, it's always the same

By the way, not sure why they always mention Dodd-Frank. If anything, D-F didn't go far enough!! Financial deregulation is what got us into this mess in the first if you want to criticise D-F, you should criticise that it doesn't go far enough.

The reason the recovery is so slow is because the banks aren't lending...which harms investments, which in turns harms growth. Banks aren't lending because of capital requirements that are really needed given how much they messed up in the past. Low capital requirements is what got us into this mess, it's the reason those banks needed bailouts in the first place. After all this mess you can't seriously suggest to tell the banks "continue as before, don't have sufficient levels of security so you don't need bailouts" just to stimulate the economy...that would just lead to another crash in 2-5 years

edit on 31-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by kingkra
It depends on how he runs his show. It's hard to argue debt with young people cause they aren't dumb people(well not all of them anyway). They do remember what happened the last time a Republican was in office. They don't have much of a leg to stand on as far as that is concerned. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Exactly! Reckless deregulation allowed lenders to raise student loan rates to increase to crazy levels in the first place...and guess who's presidency allowed that to happen

Claiming the GOP (or Romney, lol) cares about the youth is ridiculous

That's like saying a wolf cares about the wellbeing of sheep

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by jibeho

Yea, no thanks. Voting for Obama.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

According to and Obamas commercial about romney shipping jobs overseas :

But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.

Regardless, shipping jobs overseas is somewhat a minor issue when comparing other issues in the Country.
It's called business, America is based on the entrepreneurial spirit, people are going to buy t-shirts from China all day if its cheaper. Just the way it works I guess.

I personally will subcontract work out to programmers in India even though I gripe about all the tech jobs going there. Its just the way it is.

Obama/ Romney = Circus act.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by jibeho
I don't think he can seduce them with his words. Everone knows when Obummer opens his mouth he lies.
But since no one really pays attention to what is going on around them any more and the media refuses to investagate anything. It is safe to assume that Obummer has at least some control over 90% of the media.
One might say that media propaganda has more control over the situation than the politicians do.
Just look at what they did with Ron Paul. All they had to do was not allow him any air time. Then put their negitive spin on who they want you to believe that he is. So without really knowing who he is and what he believes, and most likely never hearing the actual words that he has spoken.He gets written off.
I am sickened to say it, but it is the media and their corperate heads that decide who will win the election.
People are too damn lazy to do any research. So who ever the media makes look the best is the one that wins the election. This will not change until the sheeple decide to wake up to the fact that they are not sheep. They are people with the ability to make a change (like that will happen). Because at the end of the day people are as stupiud as they were when they woke up that morning.. It is disgusting.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by marg6043

Obama saw this problem coming a mile away. That's why he bumped the dependency age to 26 so these "kids" can continue to suck their parents dry. Where will these kids be when their parents retire and need their support?? I suppose they will still be waiting for some Obama money... to help them along the way....

No... the youth will finally be sick of living with their parents, worn out of being in slave debt, and as such will welcome the death panels (errr... Department of Qualitative Health Rationing and Administration). Their folks won't be around much longer after that, so no one to take care of! Problem solved! They will be put to work for their remaining 20 years of decent life to pay their debt to society they voted for and as such deserve, and then they will welcome the panels upon themselves.

It's how this ends for them, every time. This story has been written before. Don't worry though, a few hundred years later a Liberty movement will occur. It's why we call these things Revolutions...they revolve around the same exact historical cycle over and over and over. It's why knowing history is important, at least you will be one of those who recognize what's coming and can prepare your mind to relax through it all instead of going all bezerko like that fella in Aurora or Tuscon.

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by MrXYZ

The auto bailouts worked?? Please elaborate on your statement.

Did they work for all of the car dealerships that were forced to close? Did they work of all of those who lost there jobs as a result? All these years later and there are at least 8 empty dealerships that are nothing more than weed filled parking lots in my area.

It was great for GM. They just committed to spending 60 million a year to sponsor Manchester United Soccer Team in a $600 million contract. Is that a wise way for a company bailed out by the US taxpayers to spend it? At the very least they could have sponsored something here in the United States eh?

GM got $50 billion from the taxpayers and has been a management mess since 2010. They are losing market share at a rapid rate (currently around 16% in North America when Obama pledged at least 19 to 20%) GM Stock price is falling like a lead balloon. The treasury still owns 30% of GM and their shares are worth less than 2/3 of there original value.

Is that considered a success?? To Obama... it seems to because he is still boasting like you are. As a taxpayer, I have received no benefit from this bailout and in the long run the taxpayer will be at a continued loss due to Obama's charity check to GM. They should have been left to reorganize under the supervision of bankruptcy court guidelines. They didn't have to work for what they received from Obama. Just like a spoiled kid who always wants a new toy.

Don't buy what you read in the Talking Points Memo!!
GM will cease to exist within 5 years

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in