First off all, asking that your post not be deleted is a foolproof way to make us suspicious.
Second, this is valid just as any post about "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist." Conspiracy theories involving the U.S. president are inevitable. They're also inevitably stupid. Discussion value does exist, though, so no worries.
Anyways, I watched the extended trailer, and, well... I thin the same about it as I do about the "reality" Bush being the leader of an NWO, or even GW and Outer Heaven, for that matter.
The reason i said dont del it as i thought the topic was controversial.I dont agree with alex jones.The president has not even completed 2 months and he is attacking him.Well i haven't watched the movie so i cannot fully comment but i think that this is wrong to attack a president who has yet to complete his 100 days. If this was another country the movie would have been never released.USA gives it citizens far too much rights imo,why doesnt the fbi or someone charge him with harassment or something else.?
"First off all, asking that your post not be deleted is a foolproof way to make us suspicious.
Second, this is valid just as any post about "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist." Conspiracy theories involving the U.S. president are inevitable. They're also inevitably stupid. Discussion value does exist, though, so no worries.
Anyways, I watched the extended trailer, and, well... I thin the same about it as I do about the "reality" Bush being the leader of an NWO, or even GW and Outer Heaven, for that matter.
"
Zeiteist actually has some interesting ideas and points.
Haha the beginning made me crack up. "Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere.... maybe they're under here!"
But no one can argue Obama's already told quite a few lies. I knew he was too good to be true, that's why I didn't vote for him.
Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
This guy... I'm watching the footage and I see places where the senators are talking about something completely different from what Jones is implying... This guy is simply putting together random footage in an order that spells out the message he's trying to convey.
Commando said:
"Haha the beginning made me crack up. "Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere.... maybe they're under here!"
But no one can argue Obama's already told quite a few lies. I knew he was too good to be true, that's why I didn't vote for him.
Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
"
Money has to be spent in oder to fix this country. Thats how we got out of the great depression, and thats how we'll get out of this. The problem is that Obama hasn't given us examples of his oversight on the bailouts and budget. The money needs to be spent wisely, but we don't know yet how he's going to make sure that happens. That said, i can't think of a time where he has outright lied to me, or any of us.
"This guy... I'm watching the footage and I see places where the senators are talking about something completely different from what Jones is implying... This guy is simply putting together random footage in an order that spells out the message he's trying to convey.
Money has to be spent in oder to fix this country. Thats how we got out of the great depression, and thats how we'll get out of this. The problem is that Obama hasn't given us examples of his oversight on the bailouts and budget. The money needs to be spent wisely, but we don't know yet how he's going to make sure that happens. That said, i can't think of a time where he has outright lied to me, or any of us.
"
Sorry I accidentally split up your quote. But anyways, don't even get me started on the Great Depression. The New Deal only prolonged it. UCLA's economists say it prolonged it 7 years, and the Wall Street Journal says it prolonged it 3-4 years. You've gotta read my blog, it's pretty long, but it's all the research I've gathered for my Economics project so far put in one blog. The beginning is just numbers, but after that I put down all the plans that have been used to get us out of a recession, and I compare the effectiveness of each plan, and which one works the best in my opinion.
"Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
"
Bush wasn't there for an economic collapse, he was there after economic prosperity.
"Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
"
Bush wasn't there for an economic collapse, he was there after economic prosperity."
Bush had to deal with a recession within 20 months after he was put in office. Remember the recession after 9/11? I agree it wasn't a collapse, but it's not prosperity.
i never actually said the New Deal. The big spending i was talking about was World War II. However, the idea that by doing what Hoover had in mind and just continuing to cut taxes was never going to work. The New Deal saved lives, gave millions of Americans new jobs, and most importantly, created the infrastructure of todays America (roads, bridges, dams, the like). It has been over 60 years now, and its time for much of the work we did back then to be replaced. No one wants another tragedy like the bridge collapse in Minnesota, and the only way those bridges are going to be fixed is by hiring people to fix them.
The idea that the New Deal failed is just a Fox News talking point. I mean really, you are quoting the Wall Street Journal?
"Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
"
Bush wasn't there for an economic collapse, he was there after economic prosperity."
Bush had to deal with a recession within 20 months after he was put in office. Remember the recession after 9/11? I agree it wasn't a collapse, but it's not prosperity.
"
Right, and as a result he lifted restrictions on housing markets, which is why we had the housing bubble burst in the first place. Which is why we are in this mess. Besides, the markets havent been this bad since 1997, and thats not factoring in inflation.
"Everyone's sick of Bush and his high spending, well so far Obama's been doing Bush's high spending, on steroids.
My research for my economics class shows if you average it out in dollars per day, Obama's average is 4 times higher than Bush's average(source in my blog). Bush was about 1.82 billion dollars per day on average. Obama is 6.65 billion dollars per day. This is deficit, not just spending, so this includes taxes that have come in(and this is during tax season).
"
Bush wasn't there for an economic collapse, he was there after economic prosperity."
Bush had to deal with a recession within 20 months after he was put in office. Remember the recession after 9/11? I agree it wasn't a collapse, but it's not prosperity.
"
9/11 was an outside unnatural influence, like most, there is nothing that can be done. However, everyone (Including democrats) were willing to cooperate and did. Plus he inherited a projected surplus and could have easily continued that. But no, the second people began to trust Bush, he turned it around with bullshit legislation which crippled the banking industry indefinitely, and just to amplify this.
"i never actually said the New Deal. The big spending i was talking about was World War II. However, the idea that by doing what Hoover had in mind and just continuing to cut taxes was never going to work. The New Deal saved lives, gave millions of Americans new jobs, and most importantly, created the infrastructure of todays America (roads, bridges, dams, the like). It has been over 60 years now, and its time for much of the work we did back then to be replaced. No one wants another tragedy like the bridge collapse in Minnesota, and the only way those bridges are going to be fixed is by hiring people to fix them.
The idea that the New Deal failed is just a Fox News talking point. I mean really, you are quoting the Wall Street Journal?
I agree that World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression.
Yes the New Deal did result in some good things, like social security and new infrastructure, it did prolong it.
Herbert Hoover doubled the taxes for the rich is the problem. He cut them for the poor, but the rich are the ones that write the paychecks, invest in the stock market, and purchase consumer products. I'm sorry to say that the rich basically keep our economy going.
They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"i never actually said the New Deal. The big spending i was talking about was World War II. However, the idea that by doing what Hoover had in mind and just continuing to cut taxes was never going to work. The New Deal saved lives, gave millions of Americans new jobs, and most importantly, created the infrastructure of todays America (roads, bridges, dams, the like). It has been over 60 years now, and its time for much of the work we did back then to be replaced. No one wants another tragedy like the bridge collapse in Minnesota, and the only way those bridges are going to be fixed is by hiring people to fix them.
The idea that the New Deal failed is just a Fox News talking point. I mean really, you are quoting the Wall Street Journal?
I agree that World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression.
Yes the New Deal did result in some good things, like social security and new infrastructure, it did prolong it.
Herbert Hoover doubled the taxes for the rich is the problem. He cut them for the poor, but the rich are the ones that write the paychecks, invest in the stock market, and purchase consumer products. I'm sorry to say that the rich basically keep our economy going.
"
1) "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" can be described as FDR's entire platform. Confidence. During the great depression, communism gained respect in America because there was zero unemployment... supposedly. This of course was untrue, but how could people have known. Communist parties sprung up in America and capitalism was in danger. So what the goal of the New Deal was based around the idea of consumer confidence at a time where there was zero. The New Deal saved America from Communism and you aren't aware of it (Social elements are often if not entirely ignored in economics, which is why marketing is a separate department).
2) Did the tax cuts for the rich increase worker pay? No, because the higher-ups in business get payed from the money in the budget. Tax cuts for the rich have never worked, which can be seen in a graph I put up earlier regarding worker pay.
"They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"
So from reading this post, I'm under the assumption that you agree that we need people to start spending money to get out of this, am I right?
Well, if the Government were to cut taxes across the board, poor, rich, middle class, and cut government spending, that would indirectly put more money in everyone's pockets. With the extra money, the rich could invest in the stock market(it's a buyer's market right now, the problem is, rich people are so scared Obama is gonna tax the hell out of them, that they're saving their money, and not spending it). The poor/middle class would use it to buy consumer goods, which would therefore give companies more money to stop laying off workers, and give them their paychecks. These workers would realize they have job security, and start spending money. It's like a circle.
This is a proven method that Reagan attempted while he was in office. It worked to get us out of the early '80s recession, even though he didn't execute it perfectly. He didn't cut government spending even though he knew he should have.
"They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"
So from reading this post, I'm under the assumption that you agree that we need people to start spending money to get out of this, am I right?
Well, if the Government were to cut taxes across the board, poor, rich, middle class, and cut government spending, that would indirectly put more money in everyone's pockets. With the extra money, the rich could invest in the stock market(it's a buyer's market right now, the problem is, rich people are so scared Obama is gonna tax the hell out of them, that they're saving their money, and not spending it). The poor/middle class would use it to buy consumer goods, which would therefore give companies more money to stop laying off workers, and give them their paychecks. These workers would realize they have job security, and start spending money. It's like a circle.
"
I used to be anti-tax, but then I smartened up. We can't give tax cuts 100% of the time, that's idiotic. If the rich people are scared shitless, let them be scared it's their own damn fault and they pay the least taxes in America percentage-wise. Also they aren't saving because they might be taxed, you underestimate the amount of money they have. No. They are saving because investment now would be economic suicide.
"They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"
So from reading this post, I'm under the assumption that you agree that we need people to start spending money to get out of this, am I right?
Well, if the Government were to cut taxes across the board, poor, rich, middle class, and cut government spending, that would indirectly put more money in everyone's pockets. With the extra money, the rich could invest in the stock market(it's a buyer's market right now, the problem is, rich people are so scared Obama is gonna tax the hell out of them, that they're saving their money, and not spending it). The poor/middle class would use it to buy consumer goods, which would therefore give companies more money to stop laying off workers, and give them their paychecks. These workers would realize they have job security, and start spending money. It's like a circle.
This is a proven method that Reagan attempted while he was in office. It worked to get us out of the early '80s recession, even though he didn't execute it perfectly. He didn't cut government spending even though he knew he should have.
"
Tax cuts across the board. thats exactly what Hoover did. It simply deepended the depression. We do indeed need to spend money for this to work, but the rich have had ample time to buy for the last 5 months, and they haven't been doing anything. If Obama does institute his current stimulus and budget, there are a large number of jobs created by simply following through with the infrastructure projects. The most important thing is getting people to work again. (By the way, you can see on the graph there that Reagan created a pretty large defecit in his time, so he didn't get out of the recession simply by cutting taxes. He spent a lot of money as well. When government spending is cut, it usually comes out of the school system, which is the last place we should be cutting now.
I used to be anti-tax, but then I smartened up. We can't give tax cuts 100% of the time, that's idiotic. If the rich people are scared shitless, let them be scared it's their own damn fault and they pay the least taxes in America percentage-wise. Also they aren't saving because they might be taxed, you underestimate the amount of money they have. No. They are saving because investment now would be economic suicide."
I live in an area in south Alabama that is known to have a very small middle class. My family is one of the few. There's the rich, and there's the poor. Yes they're not the super rich like the rich people in California, so you're right I'm probably underestimating some of them. I can tell you that the super rich(hundreds of millions of dollars or more) are very few in numbers- as in less than 0.01% of our country's population, even though they hold most of the wealth. I'm not talking about these people. They already have everything they want.
I'm talking about the rich(people who make more than $150,000 a year).
Those are the ones that are stable right now, but are worried they won't be stable. When a company lays off workers, it lays off the higher up people(managers, directers) that take in the higher salaries first, because they're not the ones that do the work the company needs.
My aunt is a director for a company called World Omni, which is the financial division of Southeast Toyota. The first people they laid off were all of the directors in her office last time they did layoffs(in the '90s), so she is worried about being laid off in the next 2 months. She's just saving and saving. She used to be really into the stock market, until word got around that they might be laying off.
So if she had some sense of job security, she'd probably be investing in the stock market right now. It is a buyers market. Stocks are so cheap, that if you buy them now, in 10 years(whenever we get out of this) you'll make a shitload.
This is when that circle I just showed you would show it's true colors, but Obama is doing just the opposite. These are the rich people I'm talking about. The rich people who had everything, but now could lose everything.
"They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"
So from reading this post, I'm under the assumption that you agree that we need people to start spending money to get out of this, am I right?
Well, if the Government were to cut taxes across the board, poor, rich, middle class, and cut government spending, that would indirectly put more money in everyone's pockets. With the extra money, the rich could invest in the stock market(it's a buyer's market right now, the problem is, rich people are so scared Obama is gonna tax the hell out of them, that they're saving their money, and not spending it). The poor/middle class would use it to buy consumer goods, which would therefore give companies more money to stop laying off workers, and give them their paychecks. These workers would realize they have job security, and start spending money. It's like a circle.
This is a proven method that Reagan attempted while he was in office. It worked to get us out of the early '80s recession, even though he didn't execute it perfectly. He didn't cut government spending even though he knew he should have.
"
Tax cuts across the board. thats exactly what Hoover did. It simply deepended the depression. We do indeed need to spend money for this to work, but the rich have had ample time to buy for the last 5 months, and they haven't been doing anything. If Obama does institute his current stimulus and budget, there are a large number of jobs created by simply following through with the infrastructure projects. The most important thing is getting people to work again. (By the way, you can see on the graph there that Reagan created a pretty large defecit in his time, so he didn't get out of the recession simply by cutting taxes. He spent a lot of money as well. When government spending is cut, it usually comes out of the school system, which is the last place we should be cutting now."
Both CNN(democrat) and Fox News(republican) did a story about the government's inefficiency. CNN's was about 3 months ago, and Fox News was about 2 weeks ago. I'll try to find them after I post this, but for now I'll summarize it for you:
Both of them basically said that the government has hundreds of millions of dollars every month going places that are no longer necessary. They mentioned a few government agencies that were created during the Cold War that still take in a huge amount of the Government's budget, even though we don't need them anymore. CNN did this before Obama was in office, saying that he should cut these agencies before reforming the government. Fox News obviously attacked Obama(this is after he got in office), and said he should cut these agencies before increasing our deficit more. But the main point is that both news sources think that the government has a lot of wasteful spending going on. I haven't seen anything change here, but if you have, I'd like to read it.
This is where they could cut government spending first and foremost. Even if it's only 100 million dollars, that adds up.
"They do, which is why in a depression they are the best source of tax income. I agree with Obamas plan to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 a year, though what he should have done is put an event limit on it; Once the Dow hits a certain point, or once our national debt is gone, or some similar cavieat, the extra taxes dissapear.
I can't say i agree much with the link you supplied either. Especially the piece at the very end. If recovery would have been rapid without the new deal, it would have happened under Hoover. The reason it lasted so long is because people had no money, and it took a long time to give people savings again. People don't spend money unless they know its expendable, and for a long time, people simply didn't have any expendable money.
"
So from reading this post, I'm under the assumption that you agree that we need people to start spending money to get out of this, am I right?
Well, if the Government were to cut taxes across the board, poor, rich, middle class, and cut government spending, that would indirectly put more money in everyone's pockets. With the extra money, the rich could invest in the stock market(it's a buyer's market right now, the problem is, rich people are so scared Obama is gonna tax the hell out of them, that they're saving their money, and not spending it). The poor/middle class would use it to buy consumer goods, which would therefore give companies more money to stop laying off workers, and give them their paychecks. These workers would realize they have job security, and start spending money. It's like a circle.
"
I used to be anti-tax, but then I smartened up. We can't give tax cuts 100% of the time, that's idiotic. If the rich people are scared shitless, let them be scared it's their own damn fault and they pay the least taxes in America percentage-wise. Also they aren't saving because they might be taxed, you underestimate the amount of money they have. No. They are saving because investment now would be economic suicide."
Yeah, taxes do serve a purpose. Our local municipalities would fail without tax base. In fact Pontiac MI is a great example. Since they have lost most of their tax base, they had to lay off half of the police dept and crime sky rocketed. This summer the entire school district is being layed off without guarantee of getting re-hired. Thats pretty f'ed up, so be thankful if you community can still afford its public services. My point is, not all taxes are bad. What we must demand though from our governments, is responsibility for how that tax money gets spent. On a side note, the top 400 highest income earners in the US actually payed around 17% to tax. A lof of this is due to off shore holdings and income not taxed through investments. Its kind of bull shit if you ask me. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
its out http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4764793/Alex_Jones_-_Obama_Deception this is the low res version.He has said to dl it from torrents.LEts see how it turns out
Someone else who isn't a right-wing radical or conspiracy theorist (in other words, the two types of people that will enjoy an alex jones movie) waste your time on this download and let me know how bad it is.
This guy probably had this movie in the works before Obama was even inaugurated. With something this soon into his term, most of the "facts" presented in the movie will probably be contradicted within the next year or two.
"This guy probably had this movie in the works before Obama was even inaugurated. With something this soon into his term, most of the "facts" presented in the movie will probably be contradicted within the next year or two."
Luckily for us, this shit will be unproven minutes after people see it.
Wow,and people say the NAZI's were the only ones to use propaganda and fear to get people to listen to them. On a side note, i laugh at people who think racism will ever go away,it's human nature,it's the struggle for power that is the driving force for all that we do,and untill society as a whole,decides to change it, people will continue to discriminate against other religions and races,regardless of wheather or not their accusations are true or not.
"its outhttp://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4764793/Alex_Jones_-_Obama_Deceptionthis is the low res version.He has said to dl it from torrents.LEts see how it turns out"
Log in to comment