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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


It is the job of POTUS to enforce the laws against fraud, and that is where the GW admin fell down. That is what allowed the wide spread fraud and economic disaster.

The damage had been done before the democrats ever managed to get a small majority in the house.




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
In order to see the effort of a president, you calculate using the 2-3 yrs before office, and 2-3yrs after office.

When bush got America, it was in good condition, but he fudged it up and gave it to Obama, and Obama had to start from scratch, negative to bring to this small positive we have. If he has another 4 yrs, he would take this small postive further up.

But putting another Bush 3.0 would just bring it down from the current path..

If Romney does win, the betterment of the economy would be Obama's past doing not Romney



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.


Thats your opinion. But if you read the article I posted, it shows the facts. Obama wanted TARP anyways, so why wouldn't he want banks to write down foreclosures. Obamas man Geithner even admitted that this was to help the banks, not the American people..


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.


Who has he gone after? Who has been arrested? Sure, he has said hes going after them, but what has he actually done.

All of his claims have been political posturing.


Obama’s 2009 White House summit with finance titans, in which the president warned that only he was standing "between you and the pitchforks"

Why, despite widespread outrage, financial-fraud prosecutions by the Department of Justice are at 20-year lows
Attorney General Eric Holder’s lucrative ties to a top-tier law firm whose marquee clients include some of finance’s worst offenders
How Obama’s trumpeted “task force” for investigating risky mortgage lenders—announced in this year’s State of the Union speech—is badly understaffed and has yet to produce any discernible progress


www.thedailybeast.com...

They won't charge anybody because they are all Holders buds.


GAI argues that the Obama administration’s decision to not go after Big Finance is due to senior DOJ leadership — Holder, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General Tony West, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol Mason — who “all came to the DOJ from prestigious white-collar defense firms where they represented the very financial institutions the DOJ is supposed to investigate.”

Read more: dailycaller.com... ltdown/#ixzz2AiQnrLyT


Another great article that shows just how crappy Obama has been at going after banks.


Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.



Read more: www.rollingstone.com...


I really hope you read these articles, and especially the one I posted before. Obama has talked a big game on the economy, but went back on almost every promise he offered as a candidate. All of his policies have been designed to make the rich richer.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You're giving waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much credit I don't give it six months with Romney and we will be Hunger Games all the damn way...if you don't know what that is if you never saw the movie or read the book...think civil war, barely any cash flowing, hunting and gathering, people killing people, people running to storm the WH and then being demolished by their thugs, and then being unable to move from where you are fenced in, working for dirt pay if any, rations of crap grain and oil, no car, forget driving, hope you got a mule or a horse or you can walk...this I see coming IN SIX MONTHS OF HIM IN OFFICE!!!
ETA: Not to say the collapse is not coming, oh it is, but I think that Obama is a safer gentler crash whereas Romney is going to be hard asphalt crash...in other words, we will have those safety nets and such that Romney wants to pull the rug from, therefore there would be no revolt against the WH I think (Obama) tends to be a more unifying President, Romney is about High and mighty on his podium, while Obama understands the lower class people. He is more sympathetic which will make people tolerate the crash a lot better.


edit on 29-10-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling

edit on 29-10-2012 by ldyserenity because: add



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


Got anything by a legitimate source that doesn't read like it was written by a southmore?

No publication calling itself a beast is ever going to be taken seriously. Rolling Stone needs to stick to music.

B of A isn't big enough for you? Do some research on your own, learn something instead of allowing yourself to be programmed by propaganda.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I have to agree, if there has ever been a pres candidate arrogant enough to call martial law, it would be Romney.

Hard to believe anyone would vote for this guy, to me he comes off as psychotic.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grambler
 


Got anything by a legitimate source that doesn't read like it was written by a southmore?

No publication calling itself a beast is ever going to be taken seriously. Rolling Stone needs to stick to music.

B of A isn't big enough for you? Do some research on your own, learn something instead of allowing yourself to be programmed by propaganda.


You criticize sources, and yet you yourself have cited none? What a joke. You are delusional. I can point fact after fact at you, and you won't recognize it.

I feel sorry for you. Im so tired of trying to have a civil discussion with people like you. Rolling Stone needs to stick to music. Why? Cause it shows facts that you don't like.

I do research on my own. I think that would be evident to any unbiased person reading this.

You have fun ignoring facts and backing your guy no matter what.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Originally posted by beezzer
Point #1. Obama has enabled the banks and Wall Street through QE1, QE2, QE3.

Point #2. I wonder who Obama will blame if he gets re-elected?


Point #1 (esp. QE3 that we can now call QE'inifity'), the NDAA, Patriot Act, Kill List, and drone strikes. Those right there are enough for me to know not to elect this guy into office. Oh but wait a second. In comparison to Romney, I have to say... these people are the same candidate. :/ Haha.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I have to agree, if there has ever been a pres candidate arrogant enough to call martial law, it would be Romney.

Hard to believe anyone would vote for this guy, to me he comes off as psychotic.



And if he calls Martial Law it's Game Over all the citizens will be going ApeSpit then...I would go BEAST MODE APESPIT! I Have a son IN PR if I can't go see him heads will roll!!! IDGAF who's head but someone's will roll!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


It's easy to find this information.

www.wsws.org...


Schneiderman was named by President Barack Obama last January to head a new task force composed of federal and state agencies that would, Obama claimed, aggressively investigate fraudulent activities by major banks in the run-up to the financial collapse of September 2008. The Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group would, the president declared, hold accountable those responsible for the subprime mortgage swindle that led to the collapse of the housing market and precipitated the global economic crisis.
The suit filed in the New York state court system by Schneiderman is the first to be brought by the task force. The allegations in the complaint describe criminality on a gigantic scale. The suit speaks of “systemic fraud on thousands of investors.” It calls the losses on residential mortgage securities issued by Bear Stearns in 2006 and 2007 “astounding,” totaling more than $22 billion—over a quarter of the original principal balance.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Under GW Bush, I had a good paying job, my rent was affordable, I was putting money aside for a rainy day, and I had a lot to look forward to. In the past four years, I have become unemployed, and unemployable as having two master's degrees makes me "overqualified" for most jobs. My rent has skyrocketed, prices for everything is higher, and my life is significantly worse.

Let's see...go back to when I was employed and happy? Or stick with a president who has had four years to make some progress on this economy and has failed miserably?

Yep, I am voting Romney. Obama needs to leave, desperately.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grambler
 


It's easy to find this information. www.wsws.org...



Okay. Fine. You apparently agree that this is a credible source. Lets see what the article concludes.




Nevertheless, not a single bank or top bank executive has been criminally prosecuted. Instead, a series of civil cases have been brought by federal and state agencies in which no individuals were named.

In virtually every case, these suits have been settled out of court on terms favorable to the banks. The charged institutions agreed to pay fines—amounting to a fraction of the revenues they amassed from their fraudulent activities—in return for getting off without an admission of wrongdoing. In effect, the banks have been allowed to charge off fines for illegal activities as part of the cost of doing business.

There is every indication that the suit filed by Schneiderman will follow the same pattern. It is, once again, a civil, not a criminal, suit, and no individual is named as a defendant.

The Wall Street Journal quoted William Black, a former bank regulator, saying that the decision to file civil charges shows “a continuation of the failure of leading prosecutors to bring a criminal case against any of the elite players.”

The timing of the suit suggests that it is motivated by political and electoral considerations. After shielding Wall Street criminals for four years, Obama may have calculated that he could use a well-publicized suit against the biggest Wall Street bank to provide him with a measure of political cover and boost his quasi-populist pretensions.


Your own article admits that not only has Obama failed to prosecute one major player, he just gave them slaps on the wrist. It also states this lawsuit is more of the same garbage, and even says he is only doing it to try to garner votes and will continue to shield Wall St.

Now, because your only defense against this was that my sources were bad, and we both agree this source is credible, surely you now agree that Obama is backing Wall St criminals.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Ah, but those were opinions by the publication reporting the events.

So then dig deeper.

m.washingtonpost.com... e-492c0d30bff6_story.html


Schneiderman, who took office in January 2011, has long called for a more comprehensive investigation of the mortgage-related misdeeds that led to the financial crisis. Though he ultimately signed onto a $25 billion settlement this year between the government and big banks over shoddy foreclosure practices, he spent months criticizing state and federal negotiators as too willing in initial meetings to give banks a broad legal release for their practices. Those complaints caused acrimony and infighting among his peers, but it also led the Obama administration to appoint him to the high-profile post on its mortgage task force.


Obama brought in a new player because he wasn't getting the level of prosecution he wanted.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Hating the other candidate from an opposing major party seems to be a trend with this election. It's never a great motion to vote against somebody instead of for somebody.

It's not a great idea to be so quick to blame another person for a failed term. You are mistaking Obama for the man people thought he once was, a presidential candidate that was different from all other politicians, but these past 4 years have proven the contrary.

A term that included a low of 7.8% unemployment and a downgrade of the U.S. federal government's credit rating (which occurred in 2011, far after Bush's policies destroyed our economy according to some), is nothing to boast about and call a success.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Ah, but those were opinions by the publication reporting the events.


Hahahaha!!!!! Awesome!!!! You call me out for citing biased sources, and then cite a source that disagrees with you, and now we are to believe that we should just ignore what that article said? I'm sorry, but that is unbelievably funny.

Why wouldn't you cite an article that agreed with you? Is it possible that you didn't fully read the article you posted? Wouldn't it be fare to assume you didn't read the articles I posted either? I mean, I gave you the respect of reading the info you posted, I would hope you would do the same for me.

Why should I read the next article you posted. If they disagree with you at the end of the article, will you say that doesn't matter too?

Look, regardless of what you think, the article you posted says Obama is just doing this for votes, and that its a slap on the wrist. The second article you post does nothing to dispute this. It says its a civil and not criminal case, and says there has been no indication of how much the penalty will actually be. Because of that, it would be logical to assume this case will be like the previous, a slap on the wrist.

Even if it is different this time (and I hope it is), your argument seems to be that Obama has been fighting these bankers all along. Yet you have posted no proof of this. Even under the best case scenario, Obama did absolutely nothing to the criminal bankers until a month before the election, and then he brought a CIVIL case against one bank. That still leaves tons of fraud that went on during his time in office without one meaningful prosecution.

How does that show hes tough on Wall St?

Again, the article you show as a response to my "biased" cites says that Obama is in the pocket of Wall St, and this prosecution is no different.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


That's some twisted logic you got going there. You want make the opinion stated by the fist article as fact so that you can ignore the facts in the next article, which states that Obama is bringing in someone who will do more than the people currently working in the justice department. You seem to be caught in the illusion that Obama has far more control than he actually has.

This is because you can't tell the difference between opinion, and fact.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrrr
 


I don't hate Romney, I'm just pointing out that his policies will bring us back to the crises that occurred under GW, because Romney's plans are the exact same as the GW admin's.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grambler
 


That's some twisted logic you got going there. You want make the opinion stated by the fist article as fact so that you can ignore the facts in the next article, which states that Obama is bringing in someone who will do more than the people currently working in the justice department. You seem to be caught in the illusion that Obama has far more control than he actually has.

This is because you can't tell the difference between opinion, and fact.



No. See, the first article that YOU cited, that YOU showed as a counter to my "bias" articles, mentions everything your second article does. It says he brought in a new guy, and that new guy is filing suit against JP Morgan. That fact is in both articles.

Thats where your second article stops. It doesn't say if this will be effective or what the punishment will be, it only outlines the case for it.

But the first article that you posted mentions all of this, and then gives more facts. Like the fact that not one major prosecution of bankers has happened under Obama, and the fact that all punishments he has levied have been fractions of the profits made from the corruption. These are facts, not opinions, that you are refusing to recognize, that you claim are from a reputable source.

It then gives the opinion that because this is only a civil case, it seems this will be more of the same, and does so by citing a federal banking regulator that says anything short of criminal charges would be a failure.

Now I will grant that this last part is opinion, but it is from people in the regulatory field who are using past examples to show how this is the same. Your article doesn't state rather or not this is true, and you have not given any counter opinion or reasons you think this is not the case. You merely say opinions don't matter.

Well if you don't think opinions matter, why are you here giving yours? I happen to think opinions matter, especially when backed up by facts. A source that you claim as credible thinks this move is just a political stunt and will have no real impact, and backs up why it thinks that. You have no response.

I haven't ignored facts in the second article, I just think the first article includes all of those facts and more.

The other thing is, you still haven't mentioned why you chose to cite an article that disagrees with you. Is it possible that you posted it before reading the entire article. And because I gave you the respect of reading your articles, have you read the ones I posted? I hope so, otherwise it may make you seem like your less interested in the truth, and more interested in defending your guy at all costs.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


Fact, Obama is bringing in someone new. Obama is making changes.

The rest is opinion.

You ignored the fact that Obama is bringing in someone new. Why would he do that if he wanted to keep things the way they are? Political expendency is an opinion that tries to pretend he has not done something to change the situation, and ignore the fact. You choose to embrace the opinion and ignore the fact that Obama is doing something to change things.

Fact, Obama made a change. The thing to look for next is if this could change the way Wall Street fraudsters are being prosecuted.
edit on 29-10-2012 by poet1b because: Add last two lines.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grambler
 


Fact, Obama is bringing in someone new. Obama is making changes.

The rest is opinion.

You ignored the fact that Obama is bringing in someone new. Why would he do that if he wanted to keep things the way they are? Political expendency is an opinion that tries to pretend he has not done something to change the situation, and ignore the fact. You choose to embrace the opinion and ignore the fact that Obama is doing something to change things.


And you ignore the fact that he has done nothing to prosecute these crimes his whole presidency, and that this charge is not of the criminal nature. Whatever. Any unbias person reading can see how flawed your argument is. You criticize my sources which show facts because theyre biased,and then cite an article that disagrees with you (which by the way you still haven't mentioned why you did).

Besides, any claim you have as to why Obama appointed this man is your OPINION! Your cite gave an opinion from someone involved with regulation based on Obamas record as to why he appointed this man, and you have given your opinion based on who knows what.

Let me change tactics. Your OP was about what Romney would do in situations like these. How is that not all just your opinion? Because you base it on what hes done in the past? Yet at the same time you refuse to allow opinions based on Obamas past actions.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join