Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Good the Bad and the Ugly - Obama Wins 2012

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Good:
1. We know what to expect from Obama. No false hope in Romney saving the economy, business and cities can start planning for bankruptcy now rather than hoping for Romney to save them.
2. It's only four years
3. More motivation and support for a strong third party candidate in 2016
4. We get to watch Obama stumbles through this hurricane sandy debacle and the Libya ambassador coverup. Another second term impeachment perhaps. ( define Is...)

Bad:
1. Four more years.....of Obama speeches.....with long pauses.....after three words.
2. A very hostile senate that will paralyze congress
3. Three months of orgasmic smiles and giggles from the liberal media
4. More whining and hate being stirred up by talk radio. (I'm being fair and balanced)
5. Obamacare in full force 2014
6. A Christian/Muslim trying to talk Israel from the edge of Nuclear War.
7. More Stock Market roller coaster rides as the American Dollar fights to hold its value (More buy gold commercials).

Ugly:
1. Occupy was just the beginning, now they are empowered. More hatred for the rich, and possible ugly riots with Tea Party.
2. Joe Biden
3. Homeless still homeless, now add more homeless
4. Further erosion of our freedoms, government controlled internet, etc..
5. If we don't change our course in 2016 Obama may end up being Americas last president. He would become known as the father of the American Monarchy.

Obviously I didn't vote for Obama, but I didn't vote for Romney either. If Romney won this list might look about the same.

Just need to let out some frustrations with the system.

Trying to find the positive in the negative.

Congratulations to Obama and his family, I pray for him to receive wisdom and humility.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Observationalist because: Grammar
edit on 7-11-2012 by Observationalist because: Added humility to replace purse honesty. Seems more clear
edit on 7-11-2012 by Observationalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Observationalist
 



This was a really interesting interview that describes why it isn't the rich anyone hates but the inequality.

Encore Broadcast: On Winner-Take-All Politics March 1, 2012 In this encore presentation, Bill Moyers investigates America’s economic disparity — how it happened and who’s to blame.

billmoyers.com...


Thomas Jefferson famously said, "All men are created equal." ...we believe that people whether they're rich or they're poor, whether they have lots of property or not, whether they're in, on Wall Street or off, they should have equal potential to influence what government does.
Anybody who looks around at our government today cannot believe that's the case or that we're even close to that.
PAUL PIERSON: Well certainly you just have to look at recent headlines to see a Washington that seems preoccupied with the economic concerns of those at the top and is resistant in many cases to steps that are clearly favored by a majority of the electorate such as wanting to increase taxes on the very well-to-do, letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire as if you want to do something about the deficit. That’s the single most popular proposal for doing something about the deficit would be to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. And yet that gets nowhere in Washington.
JACOB HACKER You know, there is an organized, powerful constituency for deregulation, for high end tax cuts, for policies that are neglecting some of the serious middle class strains. And there just isn't anything of comparable size or power on the other side.



PAUL PIERSON: Yes, they do. And we describe that period after World War II, which lasted for about 30 years as being a country which we labeled Broadland. And—
BILL MOYERS: Broadland?
PAUL PIERSON: Broadland. And I think it's most clearly captured by that old idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. Everybody's income is going up at the roughly the same rate, slightly faster actually towards the bottom of the income distribution than towards the top, but everybody's incomes were going up. And it's important to understand, so this wasn't some egalitarian fantasy world. It wasn't Sweden. It was the United States, recognizably the United States with significant inequalities of wealth, but everybody was participating in prosperity and seeing their incomes rise.
And then after the mid 1970's we start moving towards a distribution of income that looks more like that of a third world oligarchy. It looks more like Mexico or Brazil or Russia. Income inequality that statistics on income inequality now suggest that inequality is higher in the U.S. than it is in Egypt. And that’s quite a journey from where we were when I was growing up.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Thanks for the article, I will check it out tonight.

Seems we have a pre plan course for economic collapse. No one going to do anything about it. While everyone who is really effected gets angry. The media does a good job telling people who to be angry with.

Soetimes it feels like we're in this big experiment to see how much they, TBTB can get away with, how much the people can handle, and who will survive.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observationalist
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Thanks for the article, I will check it out tonight.

Seems we have a pre plan course for economic collapse. No one going to do anything about it. While everyone who is really effected gets angry. The media does a good job telling people who to be angry with.

Soetimes it feels like we're in this big experiment to see how much they, TBTB can get away with, how much the people can handle, and who will survive.


Here is another betrayal the GOP tries to pass off on us as excessive regulation. They are safeguards which were necessary to protect consumers. The 70 %, two thirds of America and not provide windfalls for the 1%. Reagan was good for the rich and that was a small segment of Economy in The Reagan Era
Looking at the Past Through the Lens of Economy

Tax Cuts or Tax Redistribution?

When all was said and done, the total tax burden imposed on the American people from all sources—state and local taxes, federal income and capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes—remained basically unchanged throughout the 1980s.

In the end, Reagan's reputation as a tax-cutter far outran his actual performance.

Reagan's tax policies did, however, redistribute the tax burden significantly, even if they failed to reduce it overall.

By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy, while increasing payroll taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class, Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale.

During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest one-fifth of American families actually increased by more than 16%.

By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families fell by 5.5%, and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more: their tax rate fell by 14.4%.25

Economy in the Reagan Era
edit on 7-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Thanks for these articles, you have given me a new perspective on Mr. Reagan's legacy.

I though this part of the Stagflation article hit upon what I think is a virtue that is missing from our leadership, and that's patience.

To his great credit, however, Reagan stuck by Volcker even when it would have been politically expedient for him to pressure the Fed Chairman to expand the money supply to provide a short-term boost to the economy. Both men's patience paid off after 1983, when—with inflation under control at last—the economy began growing again. That growth continued, unabated, through the rest of Reagan's two-term presidency, marking the longest peacetime period of unbroken economic expansion yet seen in American history. (An even longer boom would occur a decade later, during a Bill Clinton presidency that largely followed Reagan's lead in economic policy.) Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20


And this is a trend that continues despite all these lessons learned.


Reagan's presidency produced huge annual federal budget deficits of more than $100 billion —the equivalent of about $200 billion today. It was an ironic result for a man who had spent his entire political career criticizing deficit spending by the government. "For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit," he said in his first inaugural address, "mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals."27 Yet the national debt tripled under Reagan's watch, reaching a staggering $2.7 trillion by the time he left office. Ironically, the government's gargantuan deficit spending during the 1980s ended up providing exactly the same kind of Keynesian stimulus to the national economy that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal had provided during the Great Depression.


Republican or Democrat they are both achieving the same goal, different packages.The presidents is just a punching bag for the people and the elite. The party system is a distraction, that keeps us stuck in this cycle of apathy and outrage, all well contained within the political dogmas that are marketed to the population through the media.

I hope that makes sense, It's late.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Observationalist
 


I learned a considerable amount from those myself. Thanks for the reply. I appreciate Ben Steins non partisan take on these issues and times as well. Found a few interesting interviews with him on the internet. That was an interesting bit about not making any more money and waiting for inflation to correct itself. Imagine that took some patience indeed. One of the things we seriously lack today during the age of instant everything. All the best!
edit on 11-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Observationalist
 


Yes - 2. A very hostile congress will paralyze USA.
Last 4, republicans said that their #1 job was to sabotage EVERYTING Obama was trying to do - WHATEVER.
These 4, republicans will sabotage EVERYTING Obama tries, even if it kills USA. That's how much they love their country!


rep.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Summerian
reply to post by Observationalist
 


Yes - 2. A very hostile congress will paralyze USA.
Last 4, republicans said that their #1 job was to sabotage EVERYTING Obama was trying to do - WHATEVER.
These 4, republicans will sabotage EVERYTING Obama tries, even if it kills USA. That's how much they love their country!


rep.


Wow, epic fail on my part I ment to say congress in my OP. That changes things a bit. I'm really sorry for the error. I owe you a star.

That being said I agree with you. I am not looking forward to the stalemate for the next two years. While I appreciate the sytem of checks and balances, I'm not ok with how the politicians react and attack, it's like watching kids fight over a toy.

Again, sorry for the miscomunication.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
For the record, the following line in my original post


2. A very hostile senate that will paralyze congress


Should say

2. A very hostile congress that will paralyse the senate.

Please refer to the above post for further explanation.






top topics



 
3

log in

join