Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The new budget offer from the White House is unbelievable!

page: 8
81
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

Food stamps, taxation, welfare, etc...etc...etc is all a damn shell game. They tax the corporation...who then says because of taxes they cannot pay better wages. The Gov then starts issuing food stamps to offset the lower wages...it's all huge piles of BS.

It is all about making people dependent...why can't people understand that? If you are dependent, you will do what you are told...or else...it's blatant controls...why do people think it's kindness and compassion...that is NOT what it is about.

Oh man...these things make my brain hurt...
edit on 11/30/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)


Einstein himself said

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

www.brainyquote.com...

Most people want to believe every lie told to them by those who want to control them, and as long as scraps of food, and some entertainment are thrown at them most people will just blindly follow the wolves like sheep they are...

History always repeats itself, more so when most people are not even aware of the history of their nation, or the world, and are ignorant of what happens when the government has control over everything and people are dependant of the wolves/government.

Today what passes for an education is in actuality the indoctrination, and dumbing down of Americans to believe the lies of socialism/communism are the anwsers to all their problems...




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Your argument was that Fannie/Freddie and the CRA was to blame. I disagreed and pointed out that it was the repeal of Glass_steagall that was much more devastating.

Clinton did make that statement and led the fight on the Left to repeal it. He did it with the help of Phil Gramm and other Republicans as well. So we can blame Clinton if you like, but let's blame the Republicans that helped carry it through. Both sides are to blame.

The overall point being that Fannie/Freddie and the CRA are not the cause as you implied and you may be misinformed as to the real root causes.
edit on 30-11-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Plexi
 


There are more flavors than liberal or conservative. I myself hate all politicians. I do confess to hating conservatives/republicans/teabaggers more though. They're almost universally afflicted with a most distasteful form of stupidity. And self righteous smarminess. And unctuous whining. Like espousing corporate welfare over social welfare. Or non-negotiation as a negotiation strategy. Good luck with that.

So what label do I fit? None really. What label fits fed up with all government and the lies thereof?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 




If a company needs Gov bailouts to survive, then they are already dead and too stupid to fall down. Let them die and let an upstart company fill the spot. It is that damn simple.

Yep. I agree. That's capitalism. No one's there to bail us out or give us tax breaks.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Wait, Freddie and Fannie exploited the Banking issue.

Let me say that again differently. 2 private Govt controlled companies exploited the banking issue, pushing through people that had no business buying a house.

While Fannie and Freddie may not be the sole holders of the crap stick, they are the ones that used the process that was opened up.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Negotiating does not mean giving in to the opponent.
If the Reps are truly negotiating on my behalf, then I expect them to hold to what was promised.
Not give in to 0bama and the Dems.

And I have negotiated on behalf of others. I do understand that aspect.
That would be a bigger failure, not actually getting what the person(s) I am negotiating for want.


What if they promised you something they could not deliver? Perhaps you have been sold a bag of crap and it has become as easy way for them to say "no, we will not negotiate".

Sounds like the people that believed the Republicans got screwed.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Wait, Freddie and Fannie exploited the Banking issue.

Let me say that again differently. 2 private Govt controlled companies exploited the banking issue, pushing through people that had no business buying a house.

While Fannie and Freddie may not be the sole holders of the crap stick, they are the ones that used the process that was opened up.


Correct. And when did all of that happen? After the repeal of Glass_Steagall. Fannie and Freddie, in relation to the CRA, did not have any problems until after the repeal.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson
You do know that not even Democrats have supported Obama's budgets, right? I have a feeling you know nothing.

You do know that Obama got re-elected right?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Then, within the world of negotiating, they had no business doing so.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Your argument was that Fannie/Freddie and the CRA was to blame. I disagreed and pointed out that it was the repeal of Glass_steagall that was much more devastating.
...


You are going to tell me what my argument was/is?...

Read again my response... My argument was that CLINTON, and the left were responsible for leading us to the economic crisis...

You forget that Clinton didn't just fight with a "RINO/Republican"(Phil Gramm)...but in fact DEMOCRATS sided with Clinton on the repealing of the Glass-steagall law alongside SOME sell out "Republicans"...

BTW, you also forget that Phil Gramm is a "true NEO-CON"... He is a DEMOCRAT who supposedly "turned" into a Republican to infest, I mean join the Republican Party...


edit on 30-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I understand that.

Maybe it was repealed as a whole to enable Fannie and Freddie to operate in this way? Maybe just maybe.
I know that is getting deep into conspiracies, but does not sound that far fetched, in relation to what the Fed govt does.

Just because I have a gun, does not mean I then have the right to just go off and shoot people.
Fannie and Freddie exploited something that they should have never even come close to.

So, they are just as responsible.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Negotiating does not mean giving in to the opponent.


Of course it doesn't. However, negotiations do require a counter offer. Walking away is not negotiating.


If the Reps are truly negotiating on my behalf, then I expect them to hold to what was promised.
Not give in to 0bama and the Dems.


Great, they represent you and are behaving as you wish. However, you are in the increasingly shrinking minority on these issues. Let them continue to represent you and your unwillingness to budge at all. Keep it up and come 2014, you will not have anyone that remotely represents your interests, as the party of NO is eradicated from Congress.


And I have negotiated on behalf of others. I do understand that aspect.
That would be a bigger failure, not actually getting what the person(s) I am negotiating for want.


Did you negotiate on their behalf or did you simply make demands on their behalf? Negotiations, by definition, require compromise. It seems to me that your idea of negotiations is tantamount to an all or nothing temper tantrum...Give me everything I want or I'm taking my ball and going home. Rest assured, if Republicans continue to operate under your definition of negotiations, then they certainly will be going home...for good.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace


Of course it doesn't. However, negotiations do require a counter offer. Walking away is not negotiating.

A false sense of the other side getting what they want is part of the equation.
Walking away is part of that.
If I don't really care about, say the car I am negotiating for, and I am not getting the prices or other items I want, then being able to walk away is a very powerful tool.





Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Great, they represent you and are behaving as you wish. However, you are in the increasingly shrinking minority on these issues. Let them continue to represent you and your unwillingness to budge at all. Keep it up and come 2014, you will not have anyone that remotely represents your interests, as the party of NO is eradicated from Congress.

Unfortunately they don't really represent me, as I am not a Republican and they are not holding to MY wants and values.
As for 2014? If they get wishy washy and cave in, then yes, they will be ousted just like the 2010 midterm.

If they grow a pair and stick to what they promised, then they will be re-elected.





Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Did you negotiate on their behalf or did you simply make demands on their behalf? Negotiations, by definition, require compromise. It seems to me that your idea of negotiations is tantamount to an all or nothing temper tantrum...Give me everything I want or I'm taking my ball and going home. Rest assured, if Republicans continue to operate under your definition of negotiations, then they certainly will be going home...for good.


No, negotiating does not mean compromise. It means just that, negotiating, or arguing for what you want.
I do love your idea of what my negotiations are, that is cute.
I really am tired of hearing that the Reps just need to compromise with 0bama and Dems.
Compromising on this means to go against what they say they believe in.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
And this is why the Republicans are proving to be noneffective as leaders. They are not free-thinking individuals that are willing to do the smart thing....negotiate the terms of the budget. Instead, they are following the political "herd" and joining together to do absolutely nothing except point fingers.

This is hypocrisy in it's purest form and I would be willing to say that if they do not step to the table and negotiate, the Republicans will only prove how worthless they are.


I agree with what you are saying, but if you replace the word Republican in your post with Democrat, you pretty much still end up with the same thing.

Niether side seems to be budging and blames the other side for the stalemate.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Your argument was that Fannie/Freddie and the CRA was to blame. I disagreed and pointed out that it was the repeal of Glass_steagall that was much more devastating.
...


You are going to tell me what my argument was/is?...

Read again my response... My argument was that CLINTON, and the left were responsible for leading us to the economic crisis...

You forget that Clinton didn't just fight with a "RINO/Republican"(Phil Gramm)...but in fact DEMOCRATS sided with Clinton on the repealing of the Glass-steagall law alongside SOME sell out "Republicans"...

BTW, you also forget that Phil Gramm is a "true NEO-CON"... He is a DEMOCRAT who supposedly "turned" into a Republican to infest, I mean join the Republican Party...


edit on 30-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


I will not get into whether or not Gramm, and the other Republican co-sponsors, are RINO's or whatever. The fact remains that the repeal was a bi-partisan effort and to say the blame lays on the shoulders of Clinton and the Left is factually wrong and politically partisan.

Both sides are to blame. This should prove to any doubters that both sides work for the corporate interests.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Has anybody considered that both sides WANT us to go over the financial cliff? That there is NO way around it? The only thing I believe both sides are doing is trying to set it up so when we do go over the cliff the OTHER SIDE will somehow end up taking the blame.


i'm under the impression that there s nothing they can do and that's why they do nothing. you can't fix a ponzi scheme that has run it's coarse.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The national debt is over 17 trillion and Obama wants carte blanche, now that is scary.

What comes after trillion?

homeworktips.about.com...

You know we/they/whoever are never going to pay this off?

Right?
edit on 013030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 013030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Has anybody considered that both sides WANT us to go over the financial cliff? That there is NO way around it? The only thing I believe both sides are doing is trying to set it up so when we do go over the cliff the OTHER SIDE will somehow end up taking the blame.

.


yup



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson


You do know that not even Democrats have supported Obama's budgets, right?


Spot On, and it really says something, doesn't it?






President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it. Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.


Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate
edit on 30-11-2012 by sonnny1 because: proof



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It depends on the context in which Fannie/Freddie become such a problem. Was it because they were giving out bad loans, or were they sunk down by the government forcing them to buy-up bad mortgages from the corporations that would have just foreclosed on people....instead of working with them?

What's the saying: "privatize profits and socialize debt"?





new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join