Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers

taxpayer wrote:

You paint the picture of Obama as a helpless victim. Either you need to have more respect for his capabilities or Obama needs to step down because he has no capabilities.
Bush is history. Obama is in charge now. The buck stops with him now. No more excuses.
<quoted text>

No I simply understand how our democracy works. The president can Veto spending bills, but can't pass them on his own. Just like health care - Obama is certainly pushing for it, but if the house and senate refuse to adopt a health care bill there is not one single thing Obama can do about it.

He also can't single handedly undo the TARP bill that was passed, or pass a better one without congress.

taxpayer wrote:

The stimulus package is included in the debt?
<quoted text>

It's in included in this year's deficit progections, yes.

RJF Dupage wrote:

<quoted text>
Specious??? Check this out. You can't dispute the facts of this one. It's all over the news. In fact Topix themselves acknowledged this one too by referring everybody to the site linked here.
http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2009/10/ho...

ok read my lips why is this "STIMULOUS MONEY". It's not TARP, it's not cash for clunkers. Sounds like good old Pork to me.

Lawrence wrote:

<quoted text>
HMMM, Forest City, I heard you talking about that a while ago under a different name. You lived there right?

Several guys in my organization (myself included) lived there. Horrible at the end. We finally did a couple of websites on them.
cuaccforestcitypixetc.com/
sequel.cuaccforestcitypixetc.com/

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
ok read my lips why is this "STIMULOUS MONEY". It's not TARP, it's not cash for clunkers. Sounds like good old Pork to me.

That makes it okay?? The money they got was earmarked for low income housing, yet it's going to be used to build a stadium??? That's why it's scandalous and therefore I believe part of the stimulus package.

Tarp was bad under Bush it's Bad under Obama. Stimulus is bad when it give's money to company's directly or indirectly as in cash for clunkers. This country got to be # 1 with out goverment running all our lives and our spending. Note the more goverment gets involed the more down hill we go. When I started working the average American was the top wage earner in the world. well below that now

RJF Dupage wrote:

<quoted text>
That makes it okay?? The money they got was earmarked for low income housing, yet it's going to be used to build a stadium??? That's why it's scandalous and therefore I believe part of the stimulus package.

So it's part of the stimulous becuase it's scandalous? Huh? You make not sense - you asked why they qualified for simulous - I asked why you think it's stimoulous - now you are saying it doesn't matter, but you think it is?

Make up your mind, find out if it truly is stimlous (and part of what bill) and them come back and make a coherent argument.

So Obama will be the hands down biggest spender of all time. If we accept the jobs created number at recovery.gov it amounts to just about 340k per job. Let's put Obama down as the hands down wasteful spender too. How much in bonuses are the Goldman Sachs CEO's going to get now? Obama has really nailed those corporate crooks too.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
It's in included in this year's deficit progections, yes.

taxpayer wrote:

So Obama will be the hands down biggest spender of all time. If we accept the jobs created number at recovery.gov it amounts to just about 340k per job. Let's put Obama down as the hands down wasteful spender too. How much in bonuses are the Goldman Sachs CEO's going to get now? Obama has really nailed those corporate crooks too.
<quoted text>

hands down? Howso? the projectsion I keep reading have him doubling the national debt in 10 years (projected). I've read that from several sources. Bush managed to do it in just 8 - AND send the TARP bill into this year (Bush's last budget was responsible for 1.2 trillion of the 1.8 projeted shortfall this year).

So how does that make Obama "Hands Down" the biggest spender. If healthcare gets passed then deinately, but that is a transfer of spent money from the private sector to the public sector (good or bad). But without Health care I think Bush and Obama will be about on par - doubling the debt in 8 years.

Still crazy and unsustainable.

Transfer of spent money of the private sector to the public sector is a fun little phrase. That's what all the money we send to the government is.
Obama didn't have to follow through with TARP but since he voted for it he would have been expected to, but he gets his share of that one.
What am I hearing about Freddie and Fannie now? They need how much?
A 2nd stimulus?
We are only in the 11th month.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
hands down? Howso? the projectsion I keep reading have him doubling the national debt in 10 years (projected). I've read that from several sources. Bush managed to do it in just 8 - AND send the TARP bill into this year (Bush's last budget was responsible for 1.2 trillion of the 1.8 projeted shortfall this year).
So how does that make Obama "Hands Down" the biggest spender. If healthcare gets passed then deinately, but that is a transfer of spent money from the private sector to the public sector (good or bad). But without Health care I think Bush and Obama will be about on par - doubling the debt in 8 years.
Still crazy and unsustainable.

taxpayer wrote:

So Obama will be the hands down biggest spender of all time. If we accept the jobs created number at recovery.gov it amounts to just about 340k per job. Let's put Obama down as the hands down wasteful spender too. How much in bonuses are the Goldman Sachs CEO's going to get now? Obama has really nailed those corporate crooks too.
<quoted text>

That to create a temperary 30,000 dollar a year job washington paid 310,000 to people who are already wealthy. And now they want to run healthcare it would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
So it's part of the stimulous becuase it's scandalous? Huh? You make not sense - you asked why they qualified for simulous - I asked why you think it's stimoulous - now you are saying it doesn't matter, but you think it is?
Make up your mind, find out if it truly is stimlous (and part of what bill) and them come back and make a coherent argument.

Are you in some kind of denial? What part of Forest City received 55 million earmarked for low income housing, to build a stadium in Brooklyn are you having trouble grasping? What part of 1.5 million Forest City gave ACORN to get this stimulus pipeline are you having trouble understanding? What part of Obama is corrupt don't you grasp?

RJF Dupage wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you in some kind of denial? What part of Forest City received 55 million earmarked for low income housing, to build a stadium in Brooklyn are you having trouble grasping? What part of 1.5 million Forest City gave ACORN to get this stimulus pipeline are you having trouble understanding? What part of Obama is corrupt don't you grasp?

My point is there have been corrupt projects in the past and nobody called them "stilulous money". Your original post asked 1 simple question - "Why does this project qualify for stimulous money" nad then have go one to dance around when asked why you think it's "Stimoulous money". You have now changed your tune to say it's corrupt (which wasn't in your first post) and all this other stuff.

I am just trying to get you to address your first post. It isn't stimuouls money. If you think it is, is it TARP money (which can't go to projects like this - so that would be scandalous)? Is it some other stimulous bill i haven't heard of?

Or is it just pork (corrupt or not)?

Carol wrote:

Glenn Beck is an extremely popular show that is making a difference , which is why hes being attacked...duh. Lou Dobbs got attacked and was muffled too. Our government at work for us...lol
Our government....the biggest crooks yet.

Why am I not surprised that you would make this comment, being from backwater Arkansas and all. Carol it is obvious you have the brain power of sloth, your support for a "tv head" is laughable. Yes Carol this is all a conspiracy by the Obama administration against you and your hill billy cousins. Moron!

It is a well orchestrated agenda for a government take over. It is obvious. Open your eyes and wake up. Arkansas is not the dummy here.

little orphan annie wrote:

<quoted text>
Why am I not surprised that you would make this comment, being from backwater Arkansas and all. Carol it is obvious you have the brain power of sloth, your support for a "tv head" is laughable. Yes Carol this is all a conspiracy by the Obama administration against you and your hill billy cousins. Moron!

taxpayer wrote:

It is a well orchestrated agenda for a government take over. It is obvious. Open your eyes and wake up. Arkansas is not the dummy here.
<quoted text>

What is part of it? Nothing has been done... did the goverment come in and shut down Glen Beck? No. He is free to spout his idiocy all over the place. What did the press secretary say - the TRUTH? that Beck isn't real news, that Fox isn't real news (it isn't). Even Fox admits it only broadcasts 9 hours of news every day (it's on 24/7) and Beck, Hannity, Orielly, Fox and Freinds, any name you actually know from Fox, are not part of the NEWS.

They are part of the "Entertainment" side of Fox News - at least according to Fox News themselves.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is there have been corrupt projects in the past and nobody called them "stilulous money". Your original post asked 1 simple question - "Why does this project qualify for stimulous money" nad then have go one to dance around when asked why you think it's "Stimoulous money". You have now changed your tune to say it's corrupt (which wasn't in your first post) and all this other stuff.
I am just trying to get you to address your first post. It isn't stimuouls money. If you think it is, is it TARP money (which can't go to projects like this - so that would be scandalous)? Is it some other stimulous bill i haven't heard of?
Or is it just pork (corrupt or not)?

You're really nitpicking with the terminology. Does it really matter if it's TARP, Stimulus or just money handed under the table?

Bottom line is Forest City received 55 million dollars earmarked for Low Income Housing, to build a stadium in Brooklyn for the New Jersey Nets.

You must know that Tarp is not the only Corporate Welfare that has been handed out. There's links all over the place on that. Look 'em up yourself.

RJF Dupage wrote:

<quoted text>
You're really nitpicking with the terminology. Does it really matter if it's TARP, Stimulus or just money handed under the table?
Bottom line is Forest City received 55 million dollars earmarked for Low Income Housing, to build a stadium in Brooklyn for the New Jersey Nets.
You must know that Tarp is not the only Corporate Welfare that has been handed out. There's links all over the place on that. Look 'em up yourself.

Okay fine. Where did the money come from, how was it earmarked, was it part of a bill approved by congress? Who inserted the provision?

For all I know this could be an amendment to some bill that was stuck in there by a republican but you are trying to personally lay it at the feet of this president. I read your article but nowhere did it say that Obama handed them the money or it was from him.

I don't mind listening to reason but I'm not going to your homework for you. When you make a claim you need to back it up.

Regarding Glenn Beck's advertisers being riled....There is probably not a shortage of advertisers for FOX:) Don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay fine. Where did the money come from, how was it earmarked, was it part of a bill approved by congress? Who inserted the provision?
For all I know this could be an amendment to some bill that was stuck in there by a republican but you are trying to personally lay it at the feet of this president. I read your article but nowhere did it say that Obama handed them the money or it was from him.
I don't mind listening to reason but I'm not going to your homework for you. When you make a claim you need to back it up.

All I have to say is IF Obama had read the bill than regardless of which party put it in it should have been GONE... However, even as a senator OBAMA did little to no work and he's doing the SAME now.. it is the job of those we are paying to represent us to MAKE SURE our money is only wisely spent.. to expect ANYTHING less of them would not be acceptable.. this goes for BOTH parties, BOTH the house and senate and BEFORE signing the bill the PRESIDENT should KNOW what is in the bill.. since that is his job we will hold him responsible for having signing for any unwise spending.. Even Republicans were yelling when BUSH did it so there's NO reason to STOP just because it's OBAMA.. By the way when Bush was in office I was a registered DEMOCRAT.. It's not a party thing it's a right or wrong thing..