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.

 

If Romney wins, it will be 2008 all over again in 4 years or less.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Whoever wins will be constantly blocked by the other side to keep them from accomplishing anything worthwhile.

They'll spend all their time bickering just like most of you are doing. Dems vs Repubs, Libs vs Cons...it's all a joke and you know it.

Until you band together and quit feeding the machine nothing is going to get better.

Vote that stagnant pool of mess out of Congress. Quit reelecting the very people who block and write the bills that hurt the people and help their interests and their friend's interests.

Kicking the lobbyists out of Washington would be a good start.




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
We could only be so lucky. 2008 was a hell of a lot better than 2012.

If we vote Obummer in again, then the next 4 will be even worse than the last 4. More debit, higher taxes, fuel prices doubled again, national debit doubled, etc... Give me the "good old days" over this crap any time.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


2009 was GW's budget. Nice try but the fact is that 2009 belongs to GW.

What, you think Obama takes office, and magically his policies are put in place.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost of Chewie
 


Most of the US is doing a lot better now than in 2008.

But there will always be those backwater places where things alway get worse.

Where all the money sent to the preacher on TV to pray for them just doesn't seem to be payin off.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by xuenchen
 


2009 was GW's budget. Nice try but the fact is that 2009 belongs to GW.

What, you think Obama takes office, and magically his policies are put in place.


Yes, much of it was Bush (under a Democrat Congress with a gun to his head?) .... but Obama & Co. did add to it.
Obama's part of the FY2009 spending


wikipedia has a pretty good breakdown of what FY2009 was all for.


Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)

$644 billion – Social Security
$408 billion – Medicare
$224 billion – Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%) ...................
.........................

FY2009 Spending
Maybe the "Discretionary spending" is where the added binge spending took place. Well hidden perhaps?



Deficit

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicted a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion.

The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion. And actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion, $600 billion less than the $2.7 trillion expected.

The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.[3]

Deficit
 



ADDED: What about those unemployment figures and policies 2001 to 2007 ?







edit on Oct-28-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I thought I'd add this to the discussion because it seemed relevant:


Mitt Romney’s 5 point plan to create jobs was John McCain’s 5 point plan in 2008, and George W. Bush’s 2004. In reality, voters are voting for Bush’s economic ideas, not Romney’s.

Politics USA Article

Here are some of the important bits:



The last time this plan was tried by a president the economy collapsed. Voters rejected a rehash of the Bush ideas in 2008, and Mitt Romney is back trying to sell the same plan in a different order in 2012. The reality is that Republicans have no idea how to fix or grow the economy, but they do have an ideology that tells them government is bad, and tax cuts for the wealthy are good.


And here...


If you are early voting now, or will be stepping into the voting booth on Election Day, remember that you aren’t voting for Mitt Romney’s plan. You’ll be voting for George W. Bush’s, and we all remember where that got us the last time we tried it.


The article goes on to use specific examples of the same plan being recycled and used time and time again by the GOP.

I think if we really want change, we need to keep the change we voted for last time.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Yet more liberal desperation. It never stops.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Excellent post. It demonstrates how completely insane conservatives are. They continuously support a plan that has been proven to fail time and time again.

And some repubs are looking forward to voting for Jeb should he run. It doesn't get more messed up than that.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


First you lie and blame Obama for GWs last budget, then you try to blame the democratic congress for the destruction of the US economy, which was created by years of repub policies that allowed bankers to destroy our economy. Pathetic that you jump from one propaganda lie to another.

All those tax cuts for the super rich have done is put the US government hugely in debt.

And Romney wants to make things worse.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 

Was the economy better? Yes. Why? We were living on borrowed time. Borrowing money from the Chinese is how you pay for wars when you cut taxes. So why was the economy bad in recent years? The bills come due. So you want to go back to the lie of cutting taxes on the rich while starting new wars? How do you pay for that? We were in a deep hole. People seem to have expected to dig out of the whole quickly. Not gonna happen. It takes time to correct years of bad economics. Are we slowly getting back on our feet? Yes, we are. Will it take more time? Yes it will. Can you artificially seem better by borrowing more while cutting taxes? Yes, but then we head back for that much deeper hole again. I could easily go out and use my credit cards and make things seem great. Buy lotsa stuff, travel, eat well.... I could start up businesses and promise jobs, but then when it comes time to pay, I can't just hand it off to the Next Administration, as the Republicans did. Borrowed money, and borrowed time is all it was back then. Heading for disaster around the next corner. I kinda think they didn't WANT to win the next election! What other reason could there be for Sarah Palin as a choice? There was No Way the next Admin was going to have an easy time of it. 4 years isn't really much time when it must stop a juggernaut of stupid ideas coming to a head. Why was it terrible 4 years ago? Not because Obama had just gotten started. It was bad because that was the consequences of the Bush Years. So you want to go back to borrowing and creating new disasters? Sometimes you need to look back at history a bit more clearly in order to see what must be done in the future. And Romney will only get us back into trouble. You think Corporations and Wall Street and the Bankers should be unregulated? Total Disaster, unless you're one of THEM, the 1%ers!



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
the only way to fix the economy is to raise taxes massively, implement a federal sales tax and stop borrowing money.

you can't be $15 trillion in debt to yourselves, which doesn't even make sense, and lower or cut taxes, because it's the only way the government raises revenue.

third is get rid of both parties, because they are taking turns helping themselves to the government coffers and then blaming each other.

the economy is crap because of the republicans and democrats, yet year after year they're still in power.

it would take a literal man of the people to rise up and charismatically unite the entire u.s. under his leadership, making them forget their parties and getting them all to work.

but those kind of leaders usually turn up being the anti-Christ.

edit on 29-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


How many people died on 911, you think that was acceptable because of Pearl Harbor?

Wow!

Sorry, but the US economy was far worse under GW.


bloody hell... what on earth does that mean?

Do you know how to read mate? What was that all about?



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


Two wrongs don't make a right.

But maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at.

Maybe you could explain better, but I think that would make another thread.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
The economy was better. Ask anyone - in the WORLD even, if they'd like to go back to the state of the economy 4 years ago. Actually the further you go back, the more people want to go...



4 years ago to the day, we were in a freefall economy with no bottom in sight.

Today, we have had endless job growth.

Statistically, financially, and in every other possible way you can measure something, we are better off than we were 4 years ago.

Are we good?
Thats a different matter entirely, but the economy is something you can measure..and that is an area of numbers and statistics verses opinions and "feelings".



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by xuenchen
 


First you lie and blame Obama for GWs last budget, then you try to blame the democratic congress for the destruction of the US economy, which was created by years of repub policies that allowed bankers to destroy our economy. Pathetic that you jump from one propaganda lie to another.

All those tax cuts for the super rich have done is put the US government hugely in debt.

And Romney wants to make things worse.


Well, cant say it was all the Reps fault.
Keep in mind, it was under Clintons watch where deregulation of banks occured (1999).
(could say Newt was equally responsible, but ultimately, the buck stops at the POTUS)

I don't slam Clinton for it. He had some bad advisors on that end (there is a reason such regulations were put in place after the great depression) suggesting it would be fantastic..and the end result is exactly how history records it.
So..its a mistake..hell, even Clinton said it was a mistake..

The question is, do we learn from mistakes...The reps want to again remove regulations and "unleash wall street" -cringe-. So...some people don't learn.

Trying something isn't damnable...sticking to something after it clearly shows to be a disaster..not figuratively, not hair splitting or skewing the results, but clear cut ship sinking disaster is just being a moron whom shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.
Deregulation is such a subject that is catagorically disasterous from any angle you view it at.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
They might as well elect GW for a third term, except Romney will be worse.

First, Romney will stop enforcing laws against fraud, and the bankster crooks will again have free reign.

We are now just starting to see some economic recovery, but with Romney in the white house, investors will once again turn away from real investment in actually taking the risk to produce new technology and products, and go back to fraudulent schemes.

]


I made a thread on this exact claim. Seeing as how Obama continued so many of the policies of Bush, I would say this is his third term now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This shows how Obama has been even worse for wars and attacks on civil liberties than Bush. I can see you are primarily focused on the economy so I'll focus on that.

Its late and I'm going to hit the sack here, but I'll post this. I think it is a joke to say Obama has gone after corrupt bankers. He has at every turn shielded and encouraged them. Read some Matt Taibbi from the Rolling Stone or visit Max Keisers site for loads and loads of info on how this is the case. Any body he is going after now is small potatoes just to save face.

Here is an awesome article written by a life long democrat that shows Obama intentionally screwed over the American people in favor of corporate America. I really hope you read it and would like to hear your comments on it.


Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal. Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis. And with Neil Barofsky’s book ”Bailout,” we see why. Tim Geithner said, in private meetings, that the foreclosure mitigation programs were not meant to mitigate foreclosures, but to spread out pain for the banks, the famous “foam the runway” comment. This central lie is key to the entire Obama economic strategy. It is not that Obama was stymied by Congress, or was up against a system, or faced a massive crisis, which led to the shape of the economy we see today. Rather, Obama had a handshake deal to help the middle class offered to him by Paulson, and Obama said no. He was not constrained by anything but his own policy instincts. And the reflation of corporate profits and financial assets and death of the middle class were the predictable results.


www.salon.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
FOR MORE INFO on how to make a good worthwhile donation to a superb candidate


Drudge Report


Just so we don't get confused as to who is the better candidate here's a shrot bio on BHO - - Barack Hussein Obama is an anti-American, anti-capitalist, socialist, narcissist, Muslim, Marxist, subversive, revolutionary with a misguided intellect, and an ego far greater than his intelligence. It would be very difficult to combine such destructive characteristics in one person but there he is the so-called President of the United States. This makes him a very dangerous person when in control of our government since all of these characteristics are antithetical to American principles, laws and culture. He also has no regard for the truth and will say whatever he deems important for his control of the situation. This is a a good description of a Con Artist, aka - confidence man.

edit on 29-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by xuenchen
 


2009 was GW's budget. Nice try but the fact is that 2009 belongs to GW.

What, you think Obama takes office, and magically his policies are put in place.


The "presidents budget" is always a recomendation and has never been put through any House. All expenitures and taxation initiates in the House. Presidents only have the power to sign into law whatever congress (both houses) agrees upon, or vetoes it.

This 2008-2010 numbers are the fault of the Democrat congress and Obama NOT vetoing it. 2006-2008 numbers are Democrat congress with "no spine Bush" NOT vetoing their country destroying budgets. 2011-2012 numbers are null since no actual budgets came out of congress for the president to sign because of the senate blockade.
edit on 29-10-2012 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
They might as well elect GW for a third term, except Romney will be worse.

First, Romney will stop enforcing laws against fraud, and the bankster crooks will again have free reign.

We are now just starting to see some economic recovery, but with Romney in the white house, investors will once again turn away from real investment in actually taking the risk to produce new technology and products, and go back to fraudulent schemes.

Obama is now deporting more illegals than any other president has ever done. Romney will stop deportations, in order to keep the cheap labor available, and the crime to keep the public scared, and eager to support the military police state.

And then look for another 911, in order to provide another excuse for another couple of wars in some third world country.
edit on 28-10-2012 by poet1b because: Missed a word

edit on 28-10-2012 by poet1b because: Typo


This was the same line 4 years ago, McCain will just be another Bush! Everyone who said it seemed to be in love with Obama, and know very little about politics. McCain had built his reputation as a maverick and would have been very different than another Bush term. Now the same effective but naive tactic 4 years later. Even the President has stopped blaming Bush, maybe his supporters should finally follow suit.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


They wanted a deal to speed up TARP funds, by making promises to write down foreclosures that the incoming president had to sign off on?

As they say, the devil is in the details. And that sounds like a deal with the devil.

I disagree with your claim that Obama has only gone after the small players, when he has gone after many of the largest, and is working his way up the ladder.

Obama insisted that CEO who took Tarp money forego bonuses. That was a far step beyond what the GW admin was willing to do.

Who knows what went down in some back room deal.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join