Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 20 comments on the Jun 8, 2009, Newsday story titled Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs. In it, Newsday reports that:

President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Michelle

Raleigh, NC

#118001 Nov 5, 2012
He gave me a job scrubbing out White House toilets with my long gorilla arms.

Since: Jul 12

Baltimore, MD

#118003 Nov 5, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
Redistribution by what means? If you are talking about taking money from someone to give to someone else then the economy goes south because those people who create wealth just won't. If you are talking about redistribution through natural means, IE: I make a product and you buy it and then I use the profit to buy more materials to make more stuff plus I go out and buy things from others for myself, then that is a good thing. One only need look at all the countries that have tried option one above to see that that system is a failure. It leaves many countries in a third world status and others where everyone just gets by.
First, if money does not get redistributed by any means then there is no economy. It stops. Kind of like it did in 2008 when consumers decided they had enough debt. Then they stopped buying houses, cars, etc....

Second, if the free market economy will not do it then it must still be accomplished by some means, what do you suggest?

Keep in mind that SS and Medicare are currently the two largest wealth redistribution systems in the country. They take money from the productive worker and redistribute it to the older, non-productive American.

So if you are against forced redistribution, I suggest you start with those two.

Since: Jul 12

Baltimore, MD

#118004 Nov 5, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
One only need look at all the countries that have tried option one above to see that that system is a failure. It leaves many countries in a third world status and others where everyone just gets by.
One need only look at the debt of the US after WW II and now at the end of these two recent wars and conclude that we can not afford war. The best thing to do is just disband the military and never fight again.

That makes almost as much sense as your simplified sound bite.

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#118005 Nov 6, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
The debt was noted. You can't hide the debt. You can bury where the money comes from but you can't hide the bottom line. Bush added $5 trillion to our debt in 8 years. Obama added $6 trillion in 4 years (on track to do so). That's the facts. Where does the history of this nation of free enterprise show that we have failed to have one of the highest levels of lifestyle in the world? The poor people in this country have untold wealth compared to the wealth redistribution third world countries of the world. So, yes, it is good to have a system where some people can become very wealthy. By the way, personal attacks on one's supposed intelligence is not a very good argument when trying to defend your own position.
You are wrong. On several fronts. The cost of the "wars" were not added to the debt. And yes you can hide debt. It is quite simple actually, especially for the government. That is approxiamately 4-5 trillion. So, your "facts" are not quite factual.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#118006 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is.....going home. Ann said he will never run again.
you daddy obama sucks and will be a fool for not gettin the help in new york that the people needed hahahaha so u think bush was bad thats a joke obama will suffer and his name will be blackballed just like urs

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118007 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
One need only look at the debt of the US after WW II and now at the end of these two recent wars and conclude that we can not afford war. The best thing to do is just disband the military and never fight again.
That makes almost as much sense as your simplified sound bite.
Show me where I'm wrong. I stand by my comments. Countries with forced redistribution of wealth have lower standards of living than countries where free enterprise is the norm. Everybody suffers equally.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118008 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, if money does not get redistributed by any means then there is no economy. It stops. Kind of like it did in 2008 when consumers decided they had enough debt. Then they stopped buying houses, cars, etc....
Second, if the free market economy will not do it then it must still be accomplished by some means, what do you suggest?
Keep in mind that SS and Medicare are currently the two largest wealth redistribution systems in the country. They take money from the productive worker and redistribute it to the older, non-productive American.
So if you are against forced redistribution, I suggest you start with those two.
What is the point of having wealth if you don't do anything with it? Natural redistribution will take place because people with money aren't going to live their entire lives sleeping on it stuffed in there mattresses.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118009 Nov 6, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. On several fronts. The cost of the "wars" were not added to the debt. And yes you can hide debt. It is quite simple actually, especially for the government. That is approxiamately 4-5 trillion. So, your "facts" are not quite factual.
You can hide money in a budget but when the bottom line comes due, it shows up in the balance. The wars and everything else that money was spent on are shown in our bottom line which was negative. I'm afraid it your facts that are not factual. Of course, what does all this have to do with Obama's more-than-outrageous spending?$6 trillion in four years!

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118010 Nov 6, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. On several fronts. The cost of the "wars" were not added to the debt. And yes you can hide debt. It is quite simple actually, especially for the government. That is approxiamately 4-5 trillion. So, your "facts" are not quite factual.
sorry to burst your bubble, but bush kept the wars "off budget" but that does not mean that the monetary cost of the wars is not fully accounted for in the deficit or debt. It just means that the appropriations for the wars were made outside of normal budgetary restraints.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118011 Nov 6, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where I'm wrong. I stand by my comments. Countries with forced redistribution of wealth have lower standards of living than countries where free enterprise is the norm. Everybody suffers equally.
Show me where I am wrong.

You are correct in a couple of countries, but only when special circumstances are not included. As an example, Greece has a terrible problem with tax avoidance and they are unable to print their own currency. Either of these alone, much less together does more harm to their economy than their social programs.

Spain is a strong state country that again can not print its own currency.

Not printing their own currency removes the option of inflating their way out of debt that the US is able to do.

Germany, France, the BENELUX, Switserland, Norway, Denmark and Canada are all stronger than the US is economically. So are the "new" additions to the EU which are also socialist.

Ireland's and Portugal's problems are not related to their social programs at all. Though they are cutting those programs because they have economic problems. Ireland had a pure housing bubble like the US did. Without the bubble, they like the US would be doing much better.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118012 Nov 6, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the point of having wealth if you don't do anything with it? Natural redistribution will take place because people with money aren't going to live their entire lives sleeping on it stuffed in there mattresses.
So why isn't "natural" redistribution taking place in the US of A? And it has not taken place in sufficient quantities for years. Just like a nation can not last when it always spends more than it takes in, a nations economy can not last when less income is redistributed on a continual basis.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118013 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where I am wrong.
You are correct in a couple of countries, but only when special circumstances are not included. As an example, Greece has a terrible problem with tax avoidance and they are unable to print their own currency. Either of these alone, much less together does more harm to their economy than their social programs.
Spain is a strong state country that again can not print its own currency.
Not printing their own currency removes the option of inflating their way out of debt that the US is able to do.
Germany, France, the BENELUX, Switserland, Norway, Denmark and Canada are all stronger than the US is economically. So are the "new" additions to the EU which are also socialist.
Ireland's and Portugal's problems are not related to their social programs at all. Though they are cutting those programs because they have economic problems. Ireland had a pure housing bubble like the US did. Without the bubble, they like the US would be doing much better.
Even in the "strong" countries, their standard of living is lower than ours. I've lived in France. I have in-laws over there and I get over often enough to know what socialism has done to their country. There just comes a point when Peter has been robbed too much to so that Paul can be more equal. You've mentioned social security and medicare but the difference there is that the beneficiaries mostly also paid into those systems. However, when we start taking and taking so that we can just give it away to others who contributed nothing, then you start to have a collapse. That is the situation the "strong countries" in Europe are finding themselves. It is the road that liberals are trying to march us down in this country now.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118014 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry to burst your bubble, but bush kept the wars "off budget" but that does not mean that the monetary cost of the wars is not fully accounted for in the deficit or debt. It just means that the appropriations for the wars were made outside of normal budgetary restraints.
Thank you for backing me up on this.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118015 Nov 6, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So why isn't "natural" redistribution taking place in the US of A? And it has not taken place in sufficient quantities for years. Just like a nation can not last when it always spends more than it takes in, a nations economy can not last when less income is redistributed on a continual basis.
I think it is taking place and if left alone without excessive regulations and taxation, it will flourish.

“Lovely year for a Guinness”

Since: Dec 07

Daytona Beach

#118016 Nov 6, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Did somebody step on a duck?
and tell the cook this is low-grade dog food

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118017 Nov 6, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in the "strong" countries, their standard of living is lower than ours. I've lived in France. I have in-laws over there and I get over often enough to know what socialism has done to their country. There just comes a point when Peter has been robbed too much to so that Paul can be more equal. You've mentioned social security and medicare but the difference there is that the beneficiaries mostly also paid into those systems. However, when we start taking and taking so that we can just give it away to others who contributed nothing, then you start to have a collapse. That is the situation the "strong countries" in Europe are finding themselves. It is the road that liberals are trying to march us down in this country now.
"Who" has a lower standard of living. France has a much larger middle class than the US does. So does Germany and many of the others. I owld say thhat there top has a lower standard of living, but their middle and bottom do not.

What problems do the Germans or French have that are worse than our own? We spend $10 more on defence, they spend $10 more on their people. How does that play differently to their taxation and payout system?

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118018 Nov 6, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is taking place and if left alone without excessive regulations and taxation, it will flourish.
Incomes at the top have gone up over the last 30 years, not those in the middle or bottom. In order to keep up, the bottom and middle borrowed more to take the place of the non-existent pay raises.

Since the collapse, the top has made it back, the bottom and middle have not.

What evidence do you have that sufficient wealth redistribution is taking place? The evidence is ample that it is not.
Celestine Prophets

Bellevue, WA

#118019 Nov 6, 2012
that include payers of child support????

“Forward - over the cliff!!”

Since: Jul 10

Soetoro, Kenya

#118020 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incomes at the top have gone up over the last 30 years, not those in the middle or bottom. In order to keep up, the bottom and middle borrowed more to take the place of the non-existent pay raises.
Since the collapse, the top has made it back, the bottom and middle have not.
What evidence do you have that sufficient wealth redistribution is taking place? The evidence is ample that it is not.
what evidence do you have that the role of the federal government is to redistribute? where in the constitution do you find that?

How much redistribution do you think is sufficient, btw? Until everyone has exactly the same stuff (except the enlightened rulers like Obama, Cuomo, Schumer, etc.)?

And how, in your analysis, will resdistribution create greater economic growth?

Now that the people have spoken, and President Axelrod's cynical strategy of class- and racial-warfare have again proven effective, we can expect high unemployment to continue, taxes to skyrocket, and the debt to rise to over $20 trillion. Obama will have doubled the national debt in only 8 years. It took over 200 years to take it to $10 billion, and the Stooge will double it in 8. Now that's "change you can believe in."

BTW: How do you think that $20 trillion should be redistributed? Or should the "rich" just pay it?

America is in real trouble. We can just blame it all on Bush.
CrimeaRiver

South Ockendon, UK

#118021 Nov 7, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
what evidence do you have that the role of the federal government is to redistribute? where in the constitution do you find that?
How much redistribution do you think is sufficient, btw? Until everyone has exactly the same stuff (except the enlightened rulers like Obama, Cuomo, Schumer, etc.)?
And how, in your analysis, will resdistribution create greater economic growth?
Now that the people have spoken, and President Axelrod's cynical strategy of class- and racial-warfare have again proven effective, we can expect high unemployment to continue, taxes to skyrocket, and the debt to rise to over $20 trillion. Obama will have doubled the national debt in only 8 years. It took over 200 years to take it to $10 billion, and the Stooge will double it in 8. Now that's "change you can believe in."
BTW: How do you think that $20 trillion should be redistributed? Or should the "rich" just pay it?
America is in real trouble. We can just blame it all on Bush.
The role of the federal govt is surely to look after its people. Its not written in the constitution but democracy is. And democracy means people have their sayÖÖ so the people have spoken and chosen Obama. You do believe in democracy donít you? you fight enough wars to force it on others.
Redistribution stimulates growth in a very simple way, if people have more money to spend then this in turn creates greater demand for goods and services, which in turn creates jobs, which in turn creates growth, more employment means more people with disposable incomes, which means people have more money to spend etc etc etc.
Thatís the capitalist model you have sold to the world so itís a bit rich to now question its merits.
National debt did not rise to such preposterous levels under Obama, it was already well on its way.
For a country that is supposedly a beacon of democratic and political enlightenment, the American people are presenting themselves as increasingly ignorant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 10 min Cold Front 69,692
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 31 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,220,144
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Analog man 5,907
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 52,856
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Guru 187,313
Bubba's wife................Piano-Legs. 5 hr Piano-leg murderer 4
Bill Clinton's Wife. 5 hr WHATS-HER-PLAN 5
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]