Obama's approval ratings slide under 50%...

[sam.car]

I read earlier today, that after the first 100 days in office, his approval rating was around 60%.

Now, the ratings are under 50%...



(misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=244#)

[Starrfire]

shit happens, especially when people make big promises and don't come through with them. That's politics though.

[SKarpenz]

Maybe people are starting to realize what a joke this guy is.

[The Ninja]

Or people are just giving up because he didn't come into office and then BAM fix everything right away. =/.....

[SKarpenz]

Thats what people expected of him. Truth is he is just as bad as any other politician to have ever walked this earth. Its just sad that people bought/buy into his spew so hardcore.

[punkr6]

Maybe people are starting to realize what a joke this guy is.

Exactly....

[punkr6]

for a guy that ran on change and not supporting the Iraq war. What has he done other then spend a shit pile of money and poured trops into Afghanistan. His so called stimulus plan has done little to nothing and he is taking the credit for a recovery that really isn't happening. He was a community orginizer for crying out loud. Just go to chicago and see what he's done. one of the worst places in America. Its really amazing that he got as for as he has...

[SKarpenz]

Amen.

He and his cronies run Chicago and look at that shit hole. Everyone there (that I know personally) hates it.

[sam.car]

I remember receiving the stimulus in my paycheck. It was the talk of the week. The extra..what was it, $10? helped out big time... :rolleyes:

[BanginJimmy]

Or people are just giving up because he didn't come into office and then BAM fix everything right away. =/.....


Look a the quality of the people that voted for him. The people that said Obama was going to pay for their car, or pay their mortgage. This is what you get when you get ignorant people voting for a paycheck.

[Evil Goat]

Look a the quality of the people that voted for him. The people that said Obama was going to pay for their car, or pay their mortgage. This is what you get when you get ignorant people voting for a paycheck.


reps!

[tony]

Look a the quality of the people that voted for him. The people that said Obama was going to pay for their car, or pay their mortgage. This is what you get when you get ignorant people voting for a paycheck.

Oh you mean the more wealthy?

53% of voters who earned $200,000 or more in 2007 voted for Obama.
McCain - who was expected to triumph amongst the wealthy, succeeded in polling only 45% of these voters.


78% of the Jewish vote went to Obama

63% of Asian voters went to the ballot for Obama and 34% for McCain.


Nearly 25 per cent of U.S. are Catholic and 54 per cent of them voted for pro-abortion Obama as opposed to 46 per cent for McCain.


66% of Hispanic voters turned out for Obama - the best ever result for a Democrat.


Based on education -

No High School (Obama) 63% (McCain) 35% (Other) 2%
H.S. Graduate (Obama) 52% (McCain) 46% (Other) 2%
Some College (Obama)51% (McCain) 47% (Other) 2%
College Graduate (Obama) 50% (McCain) 48% (Other) 2%
Postgraduate (Obama) 58% (McCain) 40% (Other) 2%

Some of you need to pull your head out your ass and seperate reality from perception. Blacks hardly make up the majority of the electorate so if you want to talk about the quality of his voters, statistics show that he got the more educated, more wealthy segments of our society to vote for him.

As for approval numbers, every president goes through it. Nobody posted a thing (at least none of you) when Bush's approval numbers were in the 20's and 30's. My criticism of Obama is I wish he would just stop caring what people like yourselves think and just push his agenda, forget about bipartisanship.

[SKarpenz]

Lawl. Blind Obama supporters make me do that.

[tony]

I don't see what is blind about raw statistics but it is what it is. I'm a lot more aware to what is really is going on with a lot of you than you are, but its sub conscious and based out of fear so of course you're are afraid to be honest about what is really going on.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't see what is blind about raw statistics but it is what it is. I'm a lot more aware to what is really is going on with a lot of you than you are, but its sub conscious and based out of fear so of course you're are afraid to be honest about what is really going on.


How many of those voters were simply voting against a republican though? Since he got into office, he has lost the independant vote and more people think of themselves as conservative than while Bush was in office.

You want to compare stats, Bush was more popular 200 days into his presidency than Obama is now. Bush popularity during his first 200 days stayed pretty close to average for a president and Obama's is tanking.

Part of his problem is his inaction on healthcare. People want his plan(even though he wants single payer), not one that comes through congress. He has been unwilling and/or unable to provide anyone with that plan.

He got his stimulous plan passed, which the truth is now coming out that most of the money is back loaded into 2011 and 2012. the money that is being spent, is ebing spent on projects that do nothing to stimulate anything.

He got Cap and Trade through the House. Now people are learning the truth about it and that it will HURT the economy by forcing more manufacturing jobs overseas. It will AT LEAST DOUBLE your energy costs. After all that, it will absolutely nothing to help the environment because China and India will simply get that manufacturing business and they have no environmental standards to bother with.

Back to health care, when is he going to quit lying about it? When is he going to come right out and say he wants a single payer system? How long before he admits that taxes go up considerably on everyone in the country because of his horrible plan? How long before he admit that the VA "Death Book" will be used nationwide to stop costs from going up? He has been caught in lie after lie about health care by his own propaganda wings CNN and the AP. If this plan was so good, why was congress so quick to make sure that they were exempt from this plan?

Maybe the only ones that need to pull their head out of their ass are the ones actually blindly following Comrade Obama.

[Vteckidd]

As for approval numbers, every president goes through it. Nobody posted a thing (at least none of you) when Bush's approval numbers were in the 20's and 30's. My criticism of Obama is I wish he would just stop caring what people like yourselves think and just push his agenda, forget about bipartisanship.

If that isnt the biggest LOL i have read in forever.

So you mean if Obama would act just like Bush did? Bush never cared his approvals were in the 20-30s. He did what he though was right, with a dem congress his last 2 years.

So did i hear you right, you want Obama to act more like bush? I though bush was the ultimate evil?

Obama doesnt care about what we think, hes ramming his agenda through no matter what, problem is on healthcare, his own party disagrees with him.

Make no mistake about it, Obama is doing what he wants, but he still needs congress to come a long with him. NOTHING has been partisan about what he has been wanting to do.

This country is still HEAVILY conservative, not FAR LEFT like he and Congress is.

[MachNU]

Lets not forget about spending more money in the first hundred days, than bush did in 4 years with a war. Also lets not forget that his town hall meetings have been making a mockery of him, and his party saying its the republicans setting up people to do this. Just a piece of my :2cents:

[SPOOLIN]

I'd rather have Hillary. And i hate saying THAT! lol.

[Vteckidd]

I just think its funny:

Cause:
Bush is spending too much money and growing the deficit, so bad.

Effect:
Obama spends more than any president COMBINED in the first 100 days, and its ok.

Cause:
Bush got us into a war in Iraq that we didnt need to be in (even though 80+% voted for it in congress)

Effect:
Obama sends and pours troops into afghanistan for virtually no reason, but hey , thats perfectly ok. Iraq bad, Afghanistan GOOD.

Cause:
Bush didnt listen to anyone and did what he saw fit

Effect:
Obama has done nothing outside of party lines, and has shut republicans out (even bragging about it. (thats totally cool when Obama does it, but BAD when bush did it)

You guys really have your head up your ass, seriously

[MachNU]

I just think its funny:

Cause:
Bush is spending too much money and growing the deficit, so bad.

Effect:
Obama spends more than any president COMBINED in the first 100 days, and its ok.

Cause:
Bush got us into a war in Iraq that we didnt need to be in (even though 80+% voted for it in congress)

Effect:
Obama sends and pours troops into afghanistan for virtually no reason, but hey , thats perfectly ok. Iraq bad, Afghanistan GOOD.

Cause:
Bush didnt listen to anyone and did what he saw fit

Effect:
Obama has done nothing outside of party lines, and has shut republicans out (even bragging about it. (thats totally cool when Obama does it, but BAD when bush did it)

You guys really have your head up your ass, seriously

God I love cause and effect! :goodjob:

[81911SC]

He can do no wrong to have the people in this section. It's a fucking joke.

[zspeed24]

It is pathetic the way some people won't even attempt to see the wrong that he does. I would love if he could actually do something for the economy, health care and the rest of problems our country is facing, but the facts are the facts. He thinks spend more, tax more is going to fix the economy and its not going to. Single payer/public option health care is wrong do away with frivolous malpractice suits and allow people to bond together to purchase their own. People see this and that is why his numbers are dropping. I honestly can't believe it happened this quick. I at least figured people would ignore his failures till after the first 18 months but he is sinking himself.

[tony]

lol Its funny that everyone retreated off the "quality of voters" thing when real numbers are posted. I voted for Bush both times, I prefer a decisive president than one that is wishy washy, that is my issue.. the difference between Bush and Obama is that one was decisive without moving off of a destructive course, the other is yet to be seen. Personally I could care less for what "Neo Conservatives" want and don't want, they wont be happy with whatever it is as long as it is coming from Obama so why should he care what they (a lot of you here) think? The only reason Health Care reform has not happened is because he has tried to reach out to the other party and doing so is a waste of time and resources. We will get a public option, deal with it.

[1439/2000]

Anybody that voted for him that doesn't support him now is retarded. Same kind as the digital television conversion folks. You had plenty of time to figure exactly what was going to happen. Then when it does, you didn't expect it?

[zspeed24]

lol Its funny that everyone retreated off the "quality of voters" thing when real numbers are posted. I voted for Bush both times, I prefer a decisive president than one that is wishy washy, that is my issue.. the difference between Bush and Obama is that one was decisive without moving off of a destructive course, the other is yet to be seen. Personally I could care less for what "Neo Conservatives" want and don't want, they wont be happy with whatever it is as long as it is coming from Obama so why should he care what they (a lot of you here) think? The only reason Health Care reform has not happened is because he has tried to reach out to the other party and doing so is a waste of time and resources. We will get a public option, deal with it.

How did he try and reach out to the right?

[BanginJimmy]

lol Its funny that everyone retreated off the "quality of voters" thing when real numbers are posted.

Nice try, but you can look at the actual people and not the numbers and see the quality. Money and education mean nothing. Obama is, or at least was, the "in" thing at the time. Most of the idiots that voted for him had no clue what they were voting for. They just knew he was cool and he wasnt a republican.




I voted for Bush both times, I prefer a decisive president than one that is wishy washy, that is my issue.. the difference between Bush and Obama is that one was decisive without moving off of a destructive course, the other is yet to be seen.

We have seen enough of Obama to know that he is FAR more destructive than Bush. Obama wants to change our entire economic system to a form of socialism. Maybe not overall govt ownership, but definitely govt control over several major industries, and the dismantling of another.




Personally I could care less for what "Neo Conservatives" want and don't want, they wont be happy with whatever it is as long as it is coming from Obama so why should he care what they (a lot of you here) think? The only reason Health Care reform has not happened is because he has tried to reach out to the other party and doing so is a waste of time and resources. We will get a public option, deal with it.

Here we go again with the same old shit. If you are against Obama it is because you are a racist and are trying to keep any minorities from moving up in life. Get over this BS, as they only ones playing the race card are the liberals. They are playing the white guilt games and betting everything on its success. How about a dose of reality, each and every policy Obama is pushing would hurt the lower class. Cap and tax doubles energy costs. Healthcare lowers the standards of care. It wont be long before the massive tax increases start.

The only reason this hasnt passed is because more and more dems are seeing their political future riding on this bill. They know it wont work and they are unwilling to stake their political future on it.

Obama has already shown he has zero regard for bi-partisanship. That was obvious before he even got elected. He is a straight party line voter and expects everyone else to be the same. I know for a fact that you cant name a single time he has reached out to republicans with real compromise because it hasnt happened. I know he tried to bully them a few times though. Dems only want bi-partisan support so they can blame someone else when it fails.

[preferredduck]

you know i find something funny about obamacare. i have now sen TV commercials from the insurance companies that support obamas plan. now if these big companies are for profit, and have been making record profits then why would they back a bill that would possibly make them less money. think about that. there is something we are not seeing here that is fishy. no company in their right mind would give up massive profits for anybody, not even obamama. think about that for a while and get back to me. the only thing i can think of is the insurance companies can make up for the cost cutting by having more people enrolled to make up for it. they already dont pay shit on a claim compared to a cash pay person.

also people have now had time to see that he has lied about every campaign promise he made. transparency my ass, more like opaque.

[Total_Blender]

you know i find something funny about obamacare. i have now sen TV commercials from the insurance companies that support obamas plan. now if these big companies are for profit, and have been making record profits then why would they back a bill that would possibly make them less money.

They are playing both sides against the middle. They are supporting the wackos on the Right through funding of "advocacy groups," 527's, and political patronage.

Meanwhile they are also going for the center / Left by appearing to coming out in support of the plan in their advertising.Now that the cat is out of the bag that the insurance companies are behind this "lets disrupt the town halls" shit, they're working on damage control.

Its kinda like how Big Tobacco has ads about how they work to stop kids from smoking. It makes a good "face" for the company while they continue to do business in cancer sticks.

If you look at the campaign contributions the insurance companies make, you'll see that they give to politicians on the left and on the right. There are a few companies who donated to both Obama and McCain this past election.

[90_ACCORD]

well according to obama he inherited every problem the US is having cuz you know he wasnt here to contribut to any of it so he cannot be held responsible in any way to the problems

[punkr6]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c238/punkr6/whysostimulus.jpg

[Total_Blender]

Did Alex Jones pay you $1,000 to post that?

http://img.moronail.net/img/2/8/428.jpg

[tony]

Money and education mean nothing.

Then it begs to question what makes a "Quality" voter? Just simply one that didn't vote for Obama? Sounds fair to me. :rolleyes:

[MachNU]

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/change-barack-hussein-obama-politics-demotivational-poster-democrat-economy.jpg
Hilarious Pictures
(http://www.demotivateus.com)

[BanginJimmy]

Then it begs to question what makes a "Quality" voter? Just simply one that didn't vote for Obama? Sounds fair to me. :rolleyes:

Quality voters would be informed voters. Judging by the numbers of people dumping Obama now, I am sure that less than 50% of Obama's voters actually have half a clue what they voted for. I mean, if you looked at his campaign promises he is living up to them. The only thing they would have to knock him on is the means, not the final product.

[tony]

Quality voters would be informed voters.


As in Educated? Oh but I forgot..




Money and education mean nothing.

[SKarpenz]

Informed meaning voters who know what their candidates support and their ideals. Not necessarily "educated."

[green91]

Its good to know by the logic in this thread that since i don't support Obama that i'm a racist.

[1439/2000]

Its good to know by the logic in this thread that since i don't support Obama that i'm a racist.


Basically.

[81911SC]

Its good to know by the logic in this thread that since i don't support Obama that i'm a racist.Uh, duh.

[BanginJimmy]

Its good to know by the logic in this thread that since i don't support Obama that i'm a racist.

most people have been saying this for more than a year. It wasnt actually a surprise.

[BanginJimmy]

As in Educated? Oh but I forgot..


If you dont know the difference between educated and informed, well I guess we know who you voted for.

[green91]

I don't have a 4 or 8 yr college degree... Does this mean I cannot be an informed citizen?

[green91]

Furthermore does this mean that anyone without a formal education shouldn't be voters? I mean come on, this point is absolutely ridiculous

[Vteckidd]

I think jimmys point is that most people that voted for Obama (and i will agree with him) are largely oblivious to

1) how the economy works
2) How spending effects future generations
3) Have no clear concept of how or why the economy is where its at
4) Have no idea how a business runs or how to grow one
5) Dont understand the healthcare debate
6) Dont understand how Govt entitlements is BAD no matter how good they may sound

I agree with that statement. Most OBama supporters i talk to i can rip apart in about 60 seconds. Most of them are under 25 and have no idea about anything other than "OMG I WANT SHIT AND I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO WORK FOR IT"

I mean i cant tell you how many people i have talked to about the mortgage crisis and they have NO IDEA WHO FANNIE OR FREDDIE OR BARNEY FRANK IS. They just think it doesnt effect them.

But thats largely the entire population, most of them are uninformed and rely on the mainstream media to report what is going on. Its just ignorance plain and simple

[sam.car]

Funny thing. My professor actually asked us this same question today in my history class. Something about how trying to impose literacy tests to weed out the morons pushing buttons behind the curtains.

I didn't vote for Obama. In my opinion, he had three things going for him. He wasn't a republican, he was a minority, and he had a catchy campaign. That's it. Now that the lights and show of his voting campaign are over, two things are happening. The people who voted for him based off of his campaign messages are realizing how much hot air he was full of, and the morons voted based off of hearsay are, just like before, jumping on the bandwagon when they hear others talking badly about obama.

IMO, of course.

[MachNU]

Lets not forget that the person in charge of the treasury doesnt even pay his taxes, and he was appointed by obama! :goodjob:

[Total_Blender]

The people I know who oppose Obama don't seem all that informed on the issues: Keynesian economics, the sociological factors behind poverty, the need for regulation in certain industries, how progressive taxation works via the Weber-Fechner law, etc. Most are so uneducated that they can't even compose and punctuate a proper sentence. They are simply motivated by fear (and in some cases xenophobia/racism), so they are easily manipulated by nefarious people with nefarious agendas like Karl Rove and Dick Armey.

We can talk about who's voters are more ignorant than who's all day. Basically the mindset at both ends of the issue is "you don't think like me, so you're dumb".

[Vteckidd]

Keynesian economics doesn't work so why do we still do it?

[Total_Blender]

Keynesian economics doesn't work so why do we still do it?

Because trickle-down economics doesn't work either :goodjob:

[preferredduck]

Quality voters would be informed voters. Judging by the numbers of people dumping Obama now, I am sure that less than 50% of Obama's voters actually have half a clue what they voted for. I mean, if you looked at his campaign promises he is living up to them. The only thing they would have to knock him on is the means, not the final product.


for a good example see the video i posted of the lady who says "now i dont have to worry about the mortgage, car payments, etc because of obama." that video made me laugh until i cried.

[preferredduck]

They are playing both sides against the middle. They are supporting the wackos on the Right through funding of "advocacy groups," 527's, and political patronage.

Meanwhile they are also going for the center / Left by appearing to coming out in support of the plan in their advertising.Now that the cat is out of the bag that the insurance companies are behind this "lets disrupt the town halls" shit, they're working on damage control.

Its kinda like how Big Tobacco has ads about how they work to stop kids from smoking. It makes a good "face" for the company while they continue to do business in cancer sticks.

If you look at the campaign contributions the insurance companies make, you'll see that they give to politicians on the left and on the right. There are a few companies who donated to both Obama and McCain this past election.

i honestly dont think the insurance companies are to blame. most people are fed up with the 5 trillion lost, and the other large amounts of borrowed money used for useless BS. i saw this coming back in march. people know if it gets screwed up we have to foot the bill and it goesnt seem like the gov't is good at running anything.

[Vteckidd]

Because trickle-down economics doesn't work either :goodjob:
tell me why it doesnt.

[Total_Blender]

tell me why it doesnt.

Tell me why Keynesian economics doesn't work. I explained why trickle down doesn't work in another thread.

[bu villain]

I think jimmys point is that most people that voted for Obama (and i will agree with him) are largely oblivious to

1) how the economy works
2) How spending effects future generations
3) Have no clear concept of how or why the economy is where its at
4) Have no idea how a business runs or how to grow one
5) Dont understand the healthcare debate
6) Dont understand how Govt entitlements is BAD no matter how good they may sound

I mean i cant tell you how many people i have talked to about the mortgage crisis and they have NO IDEA WHO FANNIE OR FREDDIE OR BARNEY FRANK IS. They just think it doesnt effect them.

But thats largely the entire population, most of them are uninformed and rely on the mainstream media to report what is going on. Its just ignorance plain and simple

I agree almost completely. A huge portion of the population (has nothing to do with republican or democrat) don't understand these things. Of course they all think they are experts (as is often the case on this site). Even the true experts can't all agree but all these internet philosophers and talking heads know the truth! Too many people think they know exactly how everything should be done as if these aren't very complicated issues.

[tony]

The people I know who oppose Obama don't seem all that informed on the issues: Keynesian economics, the sociological factors behind poverty, the need for regulation in certain industries, how progressive taxation works via the Weber-Fechner law, etc. Most are so uneducated that they can't even compose and punctuate a proper sentence. They are simply motivated by fear (and in some cases xenophobia/racism), so they are easily manipulated by nefarious people with nefarious agendas like Karl Rove and Dick Armey.

We can talk about who's voters are more ignorant than who's all day. Basically the mindset at both ends of the issue is "you don't think like me, so you're dumb".


This post right here proves my point, an educated view that goes further than just talking points someone heard or saw on TV. Some of you say educated not informed is less quality when I say the two go hand in hand. When you haven't taken the time to study economics in depth and reference Fox News as your source of information that is not informed. An educated individual doesn't have to listen to the news for information on the Economy because they already UNDERSTAND economics and what drives the U.S economy. That is why you have so called informed voters throwing around terms like "Socialist" and "Marxist" when they don't even know what those terms mean or the history behind them.

Educated society = Informed Society.. and the government wants neither. So yes, educated individuals are more directed in their reasons for voting than those who are not. And stop playing the damn victim because the president is black and you are white (oh the irony) and think every criticism of your opposition to him is because of that.

Side note, Keynesian Economics is very much alive today. I've said for a while now that there has to be a common factor between Capitalism and what is good for society, because the two do not always go hand in hand.

[preferredduck]

Because trickle-down economics doesn't work either :goodjob:

i like trickle up economics instead!!!

[zspeed24]

Tell me why Keynesian economics doesn't work. I explained why trickle down doesn't work in another thread.


Japan.

[BanginJimmy]

Some of you say educated not informed is less quality when I say the two go hand in hand.

No one said anything like that. I said educated does not MEAN informed. My sister has a Masters degree in accounting, so she is educated, but what would make you think that automatically means informed about politics? The 2 are wholly separate and the place they come together is in the quality of the argument's delivery.




When you haven't taken the time to study economics in depth and reference Fox News as your source of information that is not informed.

So Fox News is out, but I imagine that you wouldnt have a problem with MSNBC or CNN being referenced. The only difference is the spin on the facts, not the facts themselves.



An educated individual doesn't have to listen to the news for information on the Economy because they already UNDERSTAND economics and what drives the U.S economy.

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is this little known paper called the Wall Street Journal that focuses about 90% of its print to economic and financial subjects. By your logic, the only people that should get this paper are the uneducated?




That is why you have so called informed voters throwing around terms like "Socialist" and "Marxist" when they don't even know what those terms mean or the history behind them.

People throw around terms like socialist, because his policies ARE socialist. I will agree that it is not pure, by the numbers socialism, but it is socialism none the less.


Educated society = Informed Society.. and the government wants neither.

Something we agree about. An educated society would strip politicians of 99% of the power they covet, they will do anything in their power to preserve that power.




So yes, educated individuals are more directed in their reasons for voting than those who are not.

This has already been dispelled. But for your sake, educated and informed are not at all the same.



And stop playing the damn victim because the president is black and you are white (oh the irony) and think every criticism of your opposition to him is because of that.

We have already seen the press and politicians associating EVERYONE that disagrees with Obama with being racists, nazis, brownshirts, and several others.


Side note, Keynesian Economics is very much alive today. I've said for a while now that there has to be a common factor between Capitalism and Communism, because the two do not always go hand in hand.

Fixed that for you. With all of the examples of communism failing, people still want to try it here like the outcome will be any different. That just completely blows my mind.

I spent at least 4 hours this past weekend talking to a friend about life in communist Russia. It was a very interesting convo that really opened my eyes. The level of social conditioning and social control exercised by the communists is still something I cannot comprehend.

[tony]

So Fox News is out, but I imagine that you wouldnt have a problem with MSNBC or CNN being referenced. The only difference is the spin on the facts, not the facts themselves.




.

I don't watch any of them because of the bias and I caution anyone that does. I try to go for the most unbiased source I can find and that is often times hard to do. Its sad that I'm finding the daily show to be more credible than most news sources out there.

[Total_Blender]

We have already seen the press and politicians associating EVERYONE that disagrees with Obama with being racists, nazis, brownshirts, and several others.
.

Both sides are throwing around the "commie" and "nazi" labels and imagery. Can't we all just work together?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n1vkfLObT4k/R97q90PnrCI/AAAAAAAABLU/E40tAMdD8A4/s320/commienazis.jpg

[BanginJimmy]

Both sides are throwing around the "commie" and "nazi" labels and imagery. Can't we all just work together?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n1vkfLObT4k/R97q90PnrCI/AAAAAAAABLU/E40tAMdD8A4/s320/commienazis.jpg

I see no reason to work with a party that wants socialism.

[VIP Style]

so if mccain won the election, and the country was still in the current slump we are in, then mccain would have been a joke as well? some of you need to get real, their is no quick fix to the current state our country is in, it will take time and "proper" spending/budgeting.
Maybe people are starting to realize what a joke this guy is.

[JITB]

oh man if i would take the time to dig up peoples words from back in 2007-8....there would be alot of mouths with feet in them!

[VIP Style]

lol
oh man if i would take the time to dig up peoples words from back in 2007-8....there would be alot of mouths with feet in them!

[Vteckidd]

Tell me why Keynesian economics doesn't work. I explained why trickle down doesn't work in another thread.

Ok i wanted to hear your thoughts cause i know what you are going to say.

Trickle Down means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer right?

Well lets REALLY look at it, instead of taking from the Liberal Talking points (like Tony says). Lets see who in here is really informed and who isnt.

Lets look at our economic Policies in the last 20-25 years shall we.


PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE TAXPAYERS- Source IRS

1980 7%
1985 7%
1990 6%
1995 5%
2000 4%
2006 3%


Now with Obamas refundable tax credit, the lower half will pay NO Federal Income Taxes at all, zero, nada , zip. Most of them will get money BACK (money which they never paid via the EIC)

The Heritage Foundation reports that the POOREST 20% of the country no only pay NO INCOME TAXES, but they get so much money back via EIC and refundable tax credits they have an effective income tax rate of -5.9%!

In 1980 the RICHEST 1% of America paid 19% of all federal income taxes. In 2006 their share had risen to 40%!

TOP 25%($65,000+) of earners paid 73% Of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in 1980, in 2006 it was 85%

The RICHEST 1% made 8% of the total national income in 1980, today its 22%. The POOREST 50% made 18% of the national income in 1980, today its 13%.

There are 3 classes of taxpayers in the US

1) The TAX PAYER: Basically top 25%, who pay close to 86% of all federal income taxes
2) The Neutrals: The middle 25% who pay the rest
3) The tax Eaters: Bottom 50% who pay NO INCOME TAXES and get refundable tax checks from the govt

Heres another interesting fact, the top 20% Of Earners, account for 46% OF ALL CONSUMER SPENDING.


The COngressional Joint Economic Committee recently did a study. They did a study of those people in the bottom 20% of the income bracket in 1979. By 1988 it found "more of them had reached the top income quintile than had remained at the bottom".
"A member of the bottom income bracket in 1979 would have had a better chance moving to the top income bracket in 1988 than remaining in the bottom bracket. 86% of those who were amoung the bottom 20 Percent in the income bracket in 79 rose out of that category in the ensuing 9 years.

Its simple statistics that get skewed to how they see fit. In reality, the POOR are getting RICHER, they are just being replaced by people making less than they were making. Why? ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, lack of job skillset, more technologically advanced jobs without proper training , etc.

Overall though, EVERY economic quintile has experienced a form of growth in the last 20 years, but the bottom 4 have just not grown as much as the top. Which is how its always been, but there HAS BEEN GROWTH.

Keynesian Economics has never worked, look at Japan, Great Depression, Germany, etc etc etc

If you can find a better system than "trickle" down, im all ears. But ill tell you one thing, its the best system to date. The problem is the "poor" would rather point fingers at the "rich" and blame them for their problems. But you cannot be successful without the rich providing a job to "the poor".

If you think you can mandate the "rich" to raise salaries on one hand, then victimize them on the other for trying to make a profit, good luck with that one.

Its obvious this whole cash for clunkers thing was a bonehead move on Obamas/Congress part. I mean sure it jumped car sales, but statistics coming out are astounding.

86% of cars being turned in are domestic, 90% of cars being sold are IMPORTS. Congrats! as the US GOVT owns 80% of General Motors and we depend on them to make a profit to get our money back, we just gave free money to OUR COMPETITORS. We are helping them sell cars! awesome.


I could write a book on why keynesian economics doesnt work, but this video sums it up
http://www.crystalclearconservative.com/2009/02/17/keynesian-economics-is-wrong/

[Total_Blender]

/ (http://www.crystalclearconservative.com/2009/02/17/keynesian-economics-is-wrong/)

You say 90% of the cars being sold are "imports," but how many of those "imports" are assembled in the US? Sure, a share of the profit does go overseas, but the factory administrators and laborers, the car dealers, their employees, EVERYONE in America in the car business is making money off of C4C.

I remember there was a letter from a Dodge dealer who was having his franchise pulled a few months ago... it generated all kinds of buzz for the Right wing. I wonder where that guy is now? It seems that he is still in business just from a quick Google search.

[zspeed24]

You say 90% of the cars being sold are "imports," but how many of those "imports" are assembled in the US? Sure, a share of the profit does go overseas, but the factory administrators and laborers, the car dealers, their employees, EVERYONE in America in the car business is making money off of C4C.

I remember there was a letter from a Dodge dealer who was having his franchise pulled a few months ago... it generated all kinds of buzz for the Right wing. I wonder where that guy is now? It seems that he is still in business just from a quick Google search.

:blah::blah::blah:

It amazes me how when you ask a question and you don't like the answer you don't acknowledge the response... As for every one making money it seems that a lot of the dealerships are losing money having to sit around waiting to see if the government is going to pay them.

[blackboi50]

what were bushes approval ratings???......1

[zspeed24]

what were bushes approval ratings???......1

He didn't hit that below 50 percent mark till Early 2005...

[AirMax95]

Politics amazes me. As solid as my foundation is in economics, the ideals of politcal debates makes me feel dumb to everything. It's funny how one side bitches that the other is wrong, and they have all the answers, but NOTHING ever gets solved! You want to know why? No matter WHO the analyst is, WHO the President is, WHO the FED chairman is.....it almost doesn't matter your political party preference is!

We are human and we all have our OWN agenda. If everyone had the answer, or a better way to do it than the last, we would not be in deep shit.

SMH....which is why I never try to debate with any of you b/c the views are already locked. Democrats and Republicans fight for a common good of the same nation, lol. Think about that shit :screwy:

[Vteckidd]

what were bushes approval ratings???......1
Mark my words Obama will be at bushes level in very short time. Healthcare debate alone killed his numbers. He can only blame bush for so long and the republicans.

Bush didn't drop until late 2005 when the left started Their spin on how bad the Iraq war was (just cause it was an election year). . The right didn't fight back hard enough .

[Vteckidd]

You say 90% of the cars being sold are "imports," but how many of those "imports" are assembled in the US? Sure, a share of the profit does go overseas, but the factory administrators and laborers, the car dealers, their employees, EVERYONE in America in the car business is making money off of C4C.

I remember there was a letter from a Dodge dealer who was having his franchise pulled a few months ago... it generated all kinds of buzz for the Right wing. I wonder where that guy is now? It seems that he is still in business just from a quick Google search.
Awesome you avoided my point again. Can you stop going off topic and answer the point I made not some tangent that's totally oblivious to the question/statement. I never said the cash 4 clunkers was bad for economy I said it was a bonehead thig to do when we own 80% of gm

Import car companies we have no stake in. If you can't comprehend how Honda/Toyota/Nissan sales (manufactured in USA or not) hurts our company GM then I don't know what to tell you.

[Vteckidd]

Not to mention taking domestic cars off the road that prob need maint., service work, etc. Congrats you just took from "mom and pop " mechanic shops.

All they did was replace domestic cars with fuel efficient cars hat have warranties that belong to the competiion. They did nothing to save the environment .

Overall it will stimulate the economy, but when you own 80% of GM and depend on a profit to make your money back , this was stupid

sidenote: it took them 4 billion to directly stimulate car sales with c4c. And it worked well. However the govt can barely pay out these car companies what makes you think they can oversee 787 billion stimulus money, 1 trillion in healthcare

they can't even distribute 4 billion without beauracracy snd red tape

[tony]

Ok i wanted to hear your thoughts cause i know what you are going to say.

Trickle Down means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer right?

Well lets REALLY look at it, instead of taking from the Liberal Talking points (like Tony says). Lets see who in here is really informed and who isnt.

Lets look at our economic Policies in the last 20-25 years shall we.


PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE TAXPAYERS- Source IRS

1980 7%
1985 7%
1990 6%
1995 5%
2000 4%
2006 3%


Now with Obamas refundable tax credit, the lower half will pay NO Federal Income Taxes at all, zero, nada , zip. Most of them will get money BACK (money which they never paid via the EIC)

The Heritage Foundation reports that the POOREST 20% of the country no only pay NO INCOME TAXES, but they get so much money back via EIC and refundable tax credits they have an effective income tax rate of -5.9%!

In 1980 the RICHEST 1% of America paid 19% of all federal income taxes. In 2006 their share had risen to 40%!

TOP 25%($65,000+) of earners paid 73% Of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in 1980, in 2006 it was 85%

The RICHEST 1% made 8% of the total national income in 1980, today its 22%. The POOREST 50% made 18% of the national income in 1980, today its 13%.

There are 3 classes of taxpayers in the US

1) The TAX PAYER: Basically top 25%, who pay close to 86% of all federal income taxes
2) The Neutrals: The middle 25% who pay the rest
3) The tax Eaters: Bottom 50% who pay NO INCOME TAXES and get refundable tax checks from the govt

Heres another interesting fact, the top 20% Of Earners, account for 46% OF ALL CONSUMER SPENDING.


The COngressional Joint Economic Committee recently did a study. They did a study of those people in the bottom 20% of the income bracket in 1979. By 1988 it found "more of them had reached the top income quintile than had remained at the bottom".
"A member of the bottom income bracket in 1979 would have had a better chance moving to the top income bracket in 1988 than remaining in the bottom bracket. 86% of those who were amoung the bottom 20 Percent in the income bracket in 79 rose out of that category in the ensuing 9 years.

Its simple statistics that get skewed to how they see fit. In reality, the POOR are getting RICHER, they are just being replaced by people making less than they were making. Why? ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, lack of job skillset, more technologically advanced jobs without proper training , etc.

Overall though, EVERY economic quintile has experienced a form of growth in the last 20 years, but the bottom 4 have just not grown as much as the top. Which is how its always been, but there HAS BEEN GROWTH.




lol These numbers are so misleading its sickening and again shows the ignorance on this subject. This is why I stated educated = informed.

First of all Taxes on the lower income bracket doesn't grow because that poverty level is EXTREMELY low, I mean minimum wage low. They spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities already compared to an individual making $40k-$60k a year. If they make $6.25 an hour @ 40 hours a week thats $250 a week, if a loaf of bread costs $5 they have to spend 2% of their weekly wage on that loaf of bread alone, that isn't even touching the full range of groceries needed to feed an individual let alone a family.

Take an undividual making $40k a year. They make $769 a week, a $5 loaf of bread is 6/10th's of a percent of their weekly income. So the lower income individual is paying almost one and a half percent more than the middle income wage earner for common goods and you want to raise their taxes? :screwy:

Second of all this whole income bracket paying more taxes, a married couple filing joint .. better yet I posted on this before with a direct link to the IRS.

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37299453&postcount=95




http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

You will notice that the $50k to $500k income bracket account for 57.8% of all revenue before tax credits.

$50k is average Joe salary especially with two incomes, even $400k isn't far fetched so this whole.. "the wealthy needs tax cuts because they pay a proportionate number of taxes" is BS.

Want to know the income bracket with the biggest tax burden?

$100k to $200k -

The #2 tax bracket is $50k to $75k.

Its funny that this is the 4th time I've posted that, just goes to show the argument never changes. The whole "The top percent" crap is all wordplay meant to be misleading.. post up the real numbers without percentages. And just for good measure here is 2008.. not much has changed.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in11si.xls

Talk to China about Keynesian Economics.. maybe India or Brazil, see how those economies are doing versus ours. China wont be hard, they already make a good percentage of the goods we consume.

[tony]

Both sides are throwing around the "commie" and "nazi" labels and imagery. Can't we all just work together?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n1vkfLObT4k/R97q90PnrCI/AAAAAAAABLU/E40tAMdD8A4/s320/commienazis.jpg

That is because they think no good can come from someone who opposes their ideals.

[Justin51982]

Well keep in mind that his "change" consisted of hiring recycled Clinton staff. With his "change" and a filibuster proof legislative branch, this country is doomed. I feel bad for whoever we elect in three and a half more years to fix this mess.

[Justin51982]

Just for fun, take a look at this article.

I want to thank those of you who helped to put this guy in office so he can ruin America.

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/what-obama-is-reading/

This article was also verified by snopes

[AirMax95]

Just for fun, take a look at this article.

I want to thank those of you who helped to put this guy in office so he can ruin America.

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/what-obama-is-reading/

This article was also verified by snopes

You lose me here with the reference to "The Post-American World" book? Zakaria is a good, educated writer. Obama is an intellectual. That book speaks on the rise of other nations. I have read some of the book, and if you are smart, it lends you to want better for the U.S. You can take the ideals and facts from this book and plan a way to adapt to the fast changing global economy.

Did I make sense? What did you get from him reading the book?

[Justin51982]

You lose me here with the reference to "The Post-American World" book? Zakaria is a good, educated writer. Obama is an intellectual. That book speaks on the rise of other nations. I have read some of the book, and if you are smart, it lends you to want better for the U.S. You can take the ideals and facts from this book and plan a way to adapt to the fast changing global economy.

Did I make sense? What did you get from him reading the book?

Calling Obama an intellectual might be a little bit of a stretch. He is intelligent, that I will agree with whole heartedly.

I agree that we also live in a world of globalization and a fast changing economy. Throughout college I've made sure to have my Marketing degree reflect International Marketing, and my minor is International Management, so again, I agree with the fast pace change and the need for globalization to maintain trade.

However, I have NOT personally read the book. I've taken my information from articles which tend to be written by fairly liberal periodicals such as the N.Y. Times. I do know that Obama seems to be more for Obama and other countries that support him, as opposed to supporting America.

One example was his decision to close Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people considered to be enemies of America were just simply released.

Another, more recent example was his reaction, or lack thereof, to North Korea's nuclear testing. Even Clinton, who was fairly spineless, was agressive in telling them to back off the tests or face the consequences. Obama has not done anything as he should, because when these tests are completed and missles put into production, they will be aimed at America.

You want more examples, I can give you them, but this man is NOT a good fit to be president of this country.

[Vteckidd]

lol These numbers are so misleading its sickening and again shows the ignorance on this subject. This is why I stated educated = informed.

I can provide all sources for all statistics if you want. Say the word ill type it all out. Most of its the IRS or other Govt agencies conducting their own studies.



First of all Taxes on the lower income bracket doesn't grow because that poverty level is EXTREMELY low, I mean minimum wage low. They spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities already compared to an individual making $40k-$60k a year. If they make $6.25 an hour @ 40 hours a week thats $250 a week, if a loaf of bread costs $5 they have to spend 2% of their weekly wage on that loaf of bread alone, that isn't even touching the full range of groceries needed to feed an individual let alone a family.

You have used this argument more than one time and it holds NO WATER. Where to start:

TOP 25%($65,000+) of earners paid 73% Of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in 1980, in 2006 it was 85%

So the bottom 75% makes UNDER $65000 a year and pays 15% of the total Federal Income taxes. Why do you think OBama said "tax cuts for 95% of America"? That encompasses anyone making under $150000/200000 a year or, the bottom 75% (making sub $65000 a year ) and then including people up to $150,000.

Guess what, if you take the BOTTOM 75% , the bottom 50% DOESNT PAY TAXES ANYWAY!. So now you have a group of 25% of people that either BARELY pay any taxes to begin with, or pay marginal taxes. Obama was pandering to the bottom 50% that dont pay anything anyway, so why does he care. He victimized the top 5%, but they pay all his GOVT revenues anyway, why would he do such a thing? Simple, TO WIN ELECTIONS.

The Dems figured out all you need is to get the vote from the following demographics. They need the BOTTOM 50% (the POOR) and how do they do that? Tax REBATES, govt programs/entitlements, Paying for healthcare, etc etc etc. Then they need a fraction of a percent of the 25% above that. All you need is 51% to win an election. Its smart. But its pure politics. So what if the RICH get pissed at him and done vote for him, he doest care, they are only 25% of the total vote. He doesnt need them.

The dems know this.

With me still?

So now we can agree that the top wage makers pay a disproportionate amount of taxes compared to the "lower class". Which is fine.




Take an undividual making $40k a year. They make $769 a week, a $5 loaf of bread is 6/10th's of a percent of their weekly income. So the lower income individual is paying almost one and a half percent more than the middle income wage earner for common goods and you want to raise their taxes? :screwy:



This argument again? My answer, Tough luck. Sucks for that guy, go out and make more money. Bill Gates buys a Ferrari and its 1/100000th% of his income and its 100% of my income, thats NOT FAIR!

Ok so what do you want to do tony? Price Freeze all commodities? Give the poor more money to buy groceries? Legislate private sector companies to raise wages? I dont get it. Give me your solution.

I can tell you one thing, the way to fix it is NOT RAISING TAXES ON THE PEOPLE THAT PROVIDE JOBS. Id love to see you sit down with a business owner and say "hey, im gonna tax you more, take that money, and give it to your John Doe employee so he can have some more money in his pocket so he can buy a loaf of bread."

2 things will happen

1) Business owner will FIRE John to save the money
2) Business owner will cut Johns pay to offset the cost
2) Business owner will RAISE his prices to offset the cost

Congrats, you did nothing to fix the problem. You just made it worse. I own a business, i know how it works.

I never said RAISE taxes on the poor, im saying the govt should CUT taxes on the "rich". THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION. If you raise taxes on them jobs will shrink, production will go down , manufacturing will drop, GDP will shrink, and you will ADVOCATE sending jobs overseas where taxes are lower.

I dont get it , you guys think by victimizing the people employing you, that you are gonna solve some social issue that John Doe doesnt make enough money.

You are wanting to legislate handouts. Im sorry but i believe that this country is great enough that if you REALLY WANT TO MAKE $100,000+ a year, if you have the drive and determination to do it, you can go out an do it.

Lastly, ive always said this, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a society without POOR people. You cannot have this UTOPIA where everyone makes awesome wages and has a dream job. Not everyone can drive a Ferrari, not everyone can own a $500,000 house. Not everyone can make $100,000+ a year, that is LIFE. Im sorry the world needs $20,000 a year people , it has to be that way. Thats life, and you cannot change it no matter what laws you pass. What you can do, is take away the system that lets you get ahead through hard work.

Take away the top "rich" people ,and you will have your middle class that is solely dependant on the govt to survive, with no room to grow and no jobs to be had. That is your Utopia. If you like that so much, move to france.



Talk to China about Keynesian Economics.. maybe India or Brazil, see how those economies are doing versus ours. China wont be hard, they already make a good percentage of the goods we consume.

China is Communist. China also is hurting pretty bad right now.

China's economy expanded by 6.1 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2009, official data showed Thursday.

The quarterly growth was the slowest in the past 10 years as the global financial crisis continued to affect the world's fastest-growing economy.

You cant really say its WORKED as we are still in a recession and no one knows where inflation or anythign else is going to be in 6months to a year. Id hold off on passing judgement

[tony]

I can provide all sources for all statistics if you want. Say the word ill type it all out. Most of its the IRS or other Govt agencies conducting their own studies.






Simple difference in views on the economy and nothing more. You give other sources, I give you THE source. You have your interpretation I have mine.

[preferredduck]

:blah::blah::blah:

It amazes me how when you ask a question and you don't like the answer you don't acknowledge the response... As for every one making money it seems that a lot of the dealerships are losing money having to sit around waiting to see if the government is going to pay them.


you are correct on this. there are many dealers who have borrowed money waiting on uncle obama's check. it may take 6 mos to get there and if 1 document was wrong they dont get paid at all. it's sad they still have to borrow money for the clunkers deal and the car companies get a sale. what an economy!!

[preferredduck]

Not to mention taking domestic cars off the road that prob need maint., service work, etc. Congrats you just took from "mom and pop " mechanic shops.

All they did was replace domestic cars with fuel efficient cars hat have warranties that belong to the competiion. They did nothing to save the environment .

Overall it will stimulate the economy, but when you own 80% of GM and depend on a profit to make your money back , this was stupid

sidenote: it took them 4 billion to directly stimulate car sales with c4c. And it worked well. However the govt can barely pay out these car companies what makes you think they can oversee 787 billion stimulus money, 1 trillion in healthcare

they can't even distribute 4 billion without beauracracy snd red tape

hey lets not forget about the 5 trillion that has been lost already. i'll provide the video link for this because at that point i would not loan them a dime.

[Total_Blender]

Actually the money for C4C came out of TARP. It was money that was already counted on the deficit.

[preferredduck]

ok now everyone gave me crap about hr 1207 and the threats the federal reserve made towards an audit. also i have been given grief because i think the FED should go bye bye. i finally have a video of bernake on this subject. the good stuff is at 6:30 but i found the whole thing interesting so take a look and listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhU3X1PiXP4&feature=channel

earlier in the video they also ask the treasury secretary about the 2 trillion lost and they flat out told congress no about who recvd $. so do you guys really want to borrow 10 trillion for healthcare from these people. let me know what you think.

this video also points up the debt has jumped so much so fast they had to add a place on the debt board for the real amount, how sad

SUPPORT HR 1207!!!

[Total_Blender]

Ugh, another Alex Jones cut and paste "film". I stopped watching it once I saw clip art.

[preferredduck]

Ugh, another Alex Jones cut and paste "film". I stopped watching it once I saw clip art.

why don't you watch it from 6:30 on, or the parts where our congress is asking questions which is not alex jones BS, grow a brain and watch those parts only.

better yet i may edit out all the other BS just so you will watch it. here is a seed so please grow a brain sometimes, it's easy. BTW thanks for letting me borrow your tin foil capped cat for my townhall meeting cuz we saw aliens.

also with all the $$ borrowed each household is responsible for about $500,000 each to pay off the debt, sounds fun huh.

[preferredduck]

Ugh, another Alex Jones cut and paste "film". I stopped watching it once I saw clip art.

http://www.wimp.com/reservelosing/

here ya go a non clip art film about the federal reserve losing about 5 trillion. have fun saying alex jones is behind this one.

[Total_Blender]

Bernanke is shown for maybe 15 seconds during the part you talk about. He says that auditing the Fed would symbolize a "government takeover" of monetary policy. I thought you guys were against government takeovers.:lmfao:

[preferredduck]

Bernanke is shown for maybe 15 seconds during the part you talk about. He says that auditing the Fed would symbolize a "government takeover" of monetary policy. I thought you guys were against government takeovers.:lmfao:


wow you think you got me. wrong again. here is a little something from our constitution, something that was made and worked long before the federal reserve.

Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, thus the Constitution gives Congress control over the U.S. monetary system.

With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress unconstitutionally transferred control of the U.S. monetary system to a consortium of twelve private banks collectively known as the Federal Reserve System or “The Fed”. This system allows The Fed to print money or create it on a computer screen and exchange it for government debt instruments. This means that a group of private banks are authorized to create money out of nothing, and lend it to the government with interest that has to be repaid by the American people through the income tax. The Fed then controls the supply of money, expanding or contracting the supply at will, thus creating constant boom-bust cycles of inflation followed by contraction. The swings in the economic cycle can be gentle or violent depending on whether The Fed is competent or whether it has some other agenda.

In order to affect any real economic reform we must restore the money of the Constitution. When we do, all other necessary reforms will be possible. The money of the Constitution, or a sound money system, means money based on something or tied to the value of something. The Constitution contemplates that the “something” that money should be based on is gold and silver. If our money supply were tied to a standard of gold and silver, then our government would have to spend within its means or borrow only “real money”. Those loans would be redeemable in gold or silver. This would prevent devaluation of the currency, i.e. inflation, because the government’s ability to create new money at its discretion would be limited.

maybe when some people realize we were poked in the butt with no lube there will be real change. i would much rather it go back to the way it was instead of this fairy tale money we have now. they both walk hand in hand and it's time for the people of this country to get serious and take it back instead of becoming a monetary slave to the rich folks.

[preferredduck]

Bernanke is shown for maybe 15 seconds during the part you talk about. He says that auditing the Fed would symbolize a "government takeover" of monetary policy. I thought you guys were against government takeovers.:lmfao:

did you not catch the "interest rates, reaking havoc, etc" it's called transparency and we have not had a bit of it since 1913. so does that finally show you that we borrow our money from a private bank and our taxes barely pay the interest on the loans. would you like you family 200 years from now being monetary slaves to these people because we rolled over like dogs for a treat.

i find it sad that the taxpayers loan out 787B and we don't even know which companies we invested in. i'll tell you what give me 10 grand and i'll invest it for you in the stock market but when you ask where you lost or made money i would tell you "NO". i don't think you would go for it but it seems you don't mind as long as the gov't is doing it for us.