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.

 

Obama creates ‘MyRa’ accounts

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Sorry to say this to you, but this the result of having a president that no only lies to the public, is ruling under executive orders and got us ACA.


I hate to break this to you, (especially seeing how you're someone who understands government) but all Presidents lie to the public and as a matter of fact, if they didn't lie from time to time , (depending on the question posed to them) they would end up disclosing national secrets vital to national security and more than likely be in violation of the law.

Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation and if I'm not mistaken, the ACA was voted on and passed in both the House & Senate. Not to mention the SCOTUS ruling stating that it was indeed "Constitutional."


marg6043
Any person with basic understanding of how our government works this days will not trust Obama and neither his policies he doesn't have a good reputation this days and neither the Federal government and corrupted agencies like the IRS, that remind me also how he has used that agency for his own personal agendas.


And therein lies "you" and your minions problem. No basic understanding of how government works.

With respect to the President's reputation, this is where you right-wingers are making a huge mis-calculation. You assume that progressives are upset with the POTUS for the same reasons that right-wingers are. In reality and more often than not, quite the opposite is true. If anything, we are upset with him for not being even more creative in his attempts to accomplish the things we elected him to do, Despite the pathetic obstructionist tactics that have become the backbone of GOP policy.


marg6043
No thanks, but you are welcome to try MyRA and let us know how well you do.


I probably would if I were not already retired and not qualified to participate in the plan.




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





Flatfish


Apparently, if it's endorsed or sponsored by Obama, that's all the proof one needs to verify that it must be corrupt.


I was trying to at least give you a great job, for telling some truth.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


This can not be repeated enough:




Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation





posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Flatfish

Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation and if I'm not mistaken,


No, youre not mistaken. Less so far, but its the content of the orders and not the amount that are disturbing. Its also the expansion of the orders and actons he has prolonged and expanded upon as well. You dont have to be a "right wing minion" to see the problems with this. More than a few of us didnt like the expansion of federal power under Bush, Clinton, daddy Bush, etc... Obama is NO different. There is NO change here... just more federal power/money grabbing.

Speaking of ad homs, you are not innocent of this either.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

LeatherNLace
reply to post by Flatfish
 


This can not be repeated enough:




Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation




Obama is coming up fast on Bush regarding Executive Orders, and he has a couple years to go yet.

But I think that Obama is pretty smart when it comes to using EO's. He is playing his cards close to the vest. His orders will have far reaching effects, just like Carters.

But history will show that Carter was the better POTUS of the two. LOL



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

LeatherNLace
reply to post by Flatfish
 


This can not be repeated enough:




Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation




Perhaps its not the quantity of EOs that matter, but the desired or end result of the EO that matters



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Flatfish
I probably would if I were not already retired and not qualified to participate in the plan.


So...you are saying that you would take a average of 1% gross with myRA over a average 8% from a IRA if you had the choice? Gimme a break.

I find that hard to believe. IF you are retired already, you can't be that much of a bleeding heart.
edit on 30-1-2014 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

six67seven

LeatherNLace
reply to post by Flatfish
 


This can not be repeated enough:




Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation




Perhaps its not the quantity of EOs that matter, but the desired or end result of the EO that matters



I'm not sure what you mean by "desired or end result". Here is a link to every executive order Obama has issued. Could you please review this list and provide specific examples and give a bit of description as to how the desired or end result is/will be negative?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

LeatherNLace

six67seven

LeatherNLace
reply to post by Flatfish
 


This can not be repeated enough:




Secondly, President Obama has signed less executive orders than many, if not most, of his predecessors regardless of their political affiliation




Perhaps its not the quantity of EOs that matter, but the desired or end result of the EO that matters



I'm not sure what you mean by "desired or end result". Here is a link to every executive order Obama has issued. Could you please review this list and provide specific examples and give a bit of description as to how the desired or end result is/will be negative?

en.wikipedia.org...



How dare you try and bring facts into this discussion?




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


No, you got it wrong ACA is only constitutional under TAX, my dear, it seems that forced commerce can only come under the term TAX this days, so taxes are easy to pass wait for the next mandate under TAX Mr. hope and change seems to think that forcing crap is good for the voters and TAX [payers in the nation this days.

That is why he is promising to create more middle class to keep taxing them to death, perhaps he thinks using his executive powers to push immigration with his pen will do that, who knows maybe 1% of the millions of illegals will be middle class while the rest will fall under the welfare system, and how can we forget that a government that can not manage a debt of 17 trillion dollars due to waste and abuse after 6 years of rule is going to be the entity I will trust with my retirement, and lord let me no get started with the IRS.

sorry that party affiliations have made your mind so closed to the realities of the crocks we call politicians this days.

Our political system is not the same as decades ago, now is nothing but corruption and the destruction of our nations due to greed and private corporate agendas.

Pray that you will retire at 65 and not by 69 or 70 like the crocks in congress has been trying to legislate for years.

At least my father got his SS at 62, I know that I probably will never see anything.




edit on 30-1-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
That chart of EO's is meanlingless considering OBama made it his personal job to 'undo' Bush's EOs.

This was back in 2008.

www.nytimes.com...

So those people are trying to using the number argument well ?

IT is all about what EOS are for.



Throughout his presidency, Mr. Bush has made liberal use of his executive authority, using it to put his stamp on a range of hot-button policy issues.


And just for snips and giggles:

Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has made liberal use of his executive authority, using it to put his stamp on a range of hot-button policy issues.

And the winner is ?
edit on 30-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


And Mr. Hope and Change have 3 more years to do just that, with all the media watching him telling how his pen is mighty than the constitution with his promise of more use of executive decisions.

Only dictators with a lot of confidence will become supreme leaders and forget about who elect their rest of their government body specially a congress,.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


It is absolutely astonishing at the defense of the administration.

Without congress, either house Obama creates a government program out of thin air.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



That is truth, I can not understand how people still doesn't get it, the propaganda machine has inundated the people's minds with the idea that congress is some type of enemy when majority comes from the opposing party, yes it happens a majority congress will control what the president can do.

But that is how checks and balances works that is why people get to elect the members of congress, that is how the people shows with votes who they favor in any election term when the ruling party shows to be not what the people wants.

Obama just blatantly is showing the voters that he doesn't give a darn about the will of them when is to use executive powers to bypass congress.

I wish people will use that gray matter call brain this days to think, really think. what is going on with political crocks this days.

Just because you voted for the ruling party now in power doesn't mean that is a growing majority that do not like anymore that ruling party and majority in congress of the opposing party is the way to show that dissatisfaction, is a way for the people to say stop the man in the white house because we don't trust him anymore.

And now the same man that doesn't give a darn about the tax payers and voters wants them to trust him and the IRS with their hard working money and invest in America, yeah right.

edit on 30-1-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 

That's your guys basis?

You do know that Bush has been gone for some time now.

Hasn't this admin gone after more whistleblowers then any other admin?
Hasn't this admin been rated, by news agencies across the board, as the most secretive?
What is the running number now for scandals and such for this admin?


Gotta love it when all you guys have is playing either the Bush's fault or race card.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It's interesting that we use annual averages ...Why not use ACTUAL numbers? Using averages..Obama could have had 1 year in the bunch where he signed almost nothing and a 0 with only 5 full years to measure would tank his average and give extremely misleading numbers of a chart like was used earlier by someone.

Barack Obama - 167 EO's to present date

George W. Bush - 291 to the date of leaving office

William Clinton - 364 to the date of leaving office

George HW. Bush - 166 to the date of leaving office

Obama's is a story without ending at this stage and 3 more years to go. He's beat Daddy Bush (with a year more to do it, to be fair) and well on his way (especially with his new focus) to beating George W. Bush by the time he leaves office.

Now the source here is the same Government these men ran. Official totals with summaries to support them. Averages aside...those are the numerical facts and Obama is a LONG way from having a light touch with the EO Pen. He's just not setting modern records ..yet.
edit on 30-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
While I think that retirement should be best left to the individual, doesn't this amount to just a failed "nothing" if it doesn't get ratified by Congress?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The thing is people.

Since Obama has spent the last 6 years UNDOING Bush's EO's that means

Bush has LESS not more than Obama.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by Flatfish
 


No, you got it wrong ACA is only constitutional under TAX, my dear, it seems that forced commerce can only come under the term TAX this days, so taxes are easy to pass wait for the next mandate under TAX Mr. hope and change seems to think that forcing crap is good for the voters and TAX [payers in the nation this days.

That is why he is promising to create more middle class to keep taxing them to death, perhaps he thinks using his executive powers to push immigration with his pen will do that, who knows maybe 1% of the millions of illegals will be middle class while the rest will fall under the welfare system, and how can we forget that a government that can not manage a debt of 17 trillion dollars due to waste and abuse after 6 years of rule is going to be the entity I will trust with my retirement, and lord let me no get started with the IRS.

sorry that party affiliations have made your mind so closed to the realities of the crocks we call politicians this days.

Our political system is not the same as decades ago, now is nothing but corruption and the destruction of our nations due to greed and private corporate agendas.

Pray that you will retire at 65 and not by 69 or 70 like the crocks in congress has been trying to legislate for years.

At least my father got his SS at 62, I know that I probably will never see anything.


Yes, it was ruled constitutional as a "tax." Just keep in mind that the only reason it even had to be considered that way was due to the fact that the Democrats conceded to Republican demands of protecting the private, for-profit, healthcare insurance industry and succumbed to the prospect of the individual mandate that everyone obtain a private policy.

Ask any Democrat and they'll tell you that we ask for a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system that would never have even been the subject of Supreme Court scrutiny. (unless you're contending that the current Medicare program is unconstitutional as well) At the very least, we ask for a Public Option which would have operated on a not-for-profit basis. We got neither.

This is IMO, probably the single biggest fault of the current administration that causes Democrats to judge them negatively. (something many Republicans have mistakenly interpreted as support for "their" cause.)

The Democrats in Congress gave in to the personal mandate as a compromise to the Republicans in an effort to garner support from their side of the isle, but to no avail.

Because of their oath to oppose anything Obama supports and despite the fact that it was their idea in the first place, (originating with The Heritage Foundation, the bastion of right-wing ideology) they still voted unanimously against it.

This is why some Democrats are pissed at the President. Because he has proven to be naive enough to believe that the GOP wants to work with him in any way whatsoever. Their stated mission is to oppose everything that Obama supports, no matter what. We're pissed that it's taken so long for President Obama to come to this realization.

Oh yeah, I'm already retired. I retired at age 48 on one of those dreaded union pension plans that happens to be fully funded because we didn't allow our employer to "promise" to pay. We mandated that pension benefit payments be made quarterly into our jointly managed benefit trust funds. I've been retired for over 9yrs. now and I'm enjoying every minute of it.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by Flatfish
 



Flatfish


Apparently, if it's endorsed or sponsored by Obama, that's all the proof one needs to verify that it must be corrupt.


I was trying to at least give you a great job, for telling some truth.


You clearly mistake sarcasm for truth.

I was describing the mindset of right-wing ATSers, but I'm sure you already know that.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join