Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109491 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 8, 2009, 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.

TSM

United States

#118082 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were telling the truth he would not have gotten re-elected. But you keep following the same failed Republican policies and see where that gets you in November 2014.
OKB2 I tilt my hat to you!! You were Right it is an Embarrassment not to win the Senate/House and the Presidency under those Condition!!
James Madison

Birmingham, AL

#118084 Nov 7, 2012
Obama voters in nj pa.,ny, new england. have fun at your victory party while your homeless from the storm and 4 ft of snow is dumped on you
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#118085 Nov 7, 2012
Logic wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop being stupid
He can't help himself, stupid is his DNA make up.
Why bother?
CrimeaRiver

UK

#118086 Nov 8, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
As a pommie from a country with no written Constitution, your ignorance of the American Constitution is forgiveable.
The American Constitution does not establish or describe democracy - it establishes a Republic.
<quoted text>
Sophomoric rubbish.
<quoted text>
I have attempted to aid your misunderstanding on this point in a previous post.
<quoted text>
I don't know about democratic and political enlightenment, but yesterday's electoral results make it impossible for me to argue the American people are not presenting themselves as increasingly ignorant in terms of fiscal and economic enlightenment.
You're correct, I don't know the ins and outs of American Politics. You're quick to point out that the constituion established a republic but not democracy.

Are you a fan of democracy? do you believe in the people's right to choose their president?

The US points a gun at weaker nations and demands that they adopt democracy. But you yourself aren't willing to accept the democratically elected two-term leader of the USA.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#118087 Nov 8, 2012
ya u poor people up there injoy ur obama fema ur getting lol u fools

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118088 Nov 8, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Comma has two "m"s.
So do you spell everything with 18th Century spellings?
Perhaps, perhaps not.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118089 Nov 8, 2012
About Time wrote:
<quoted text>
Democrats didn't gain as well. The popular vote shows clearly a divided electorate. This POTUS has more daunting tasks ahead, starting with the Fiscal Cliff looming at year end.
In this economy, not losing is gaining. The fact that Obama was re-elected is historical with the economy in the shape it is in. the fact that Democrats held the Senate is Historic.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118090 Nov 8, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. It was called WWII.
Then why the recession at the end of WW II? What about the recessions of the 50s?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118091 Nov 8, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You tax to raise revenue to run the federal government - the only legitimate reason to tax. An income tax that does this by taking a flat % of income is in no way "redistributive" in aim or result.
Your lame attempt to argue otherwise is pure sophistry.
<quoted text>
Any "misunderstanding" is all yours - and it is intentional.
Your lame attempt to obfuscate by equating free economic transactions between individuals in a free market with confiscation of private income/wealth by government via any form of progressive tax (which by definition has a "redistributive" aim at least in part) is pure sophistry.
<quoted text>
Waiting for your evidence and argument supporting this assertion. Please make sure to include your explanation for the decline in US middle class wage rates, citing objective evidence supporting your theory.
<quoted text>
If you do say so yourself. Of course they are.
So, if I take 10% of all income and then use that to pay for social welfare programs for low income people it is not "redistributive?"

What if I take the same money and instead just put it towards the defense industry? Aren't those in the military and those supplying the military with products and services benefitting as opposed to the store clerk at 7-11 who is paying the tax?

If the government taxes different types of income at different rates (earned income, dividends, capital gains, interest, inheritence) isn't it redistributive by the definition you offered?

The sophistry is on you.

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#118092 Nov 8, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I take 10% of all income and then use that to pay for social welfare programs for low income people it is not "redistributive?"
What if I take the same money and instead just put it towards the defense industry? Aren't those in the military and those supplying the military with products and services benefitting as opposed to the store clerk at 7-11 who is paying the tax?
If the government taxes different types of income at different rates (earned income, dividends, capital gains, interest, inheritence) isn't it redistributive by the definition you offered?
The sophistry is on you.
And what about giving certain industries subsidies? These come from the taxpayers. THey must be ok with that.
what

Nashville, TN

#118093 Nov 8, 2012
what?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118094 Nov 8, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
And what about giving certain industries subsidies? These come from the taxpayers. THey must be ok with that.
Excellent point.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#118097 Nov 8, 2012
this country wont grow with two divided thoughts

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#118099 Nov 8, 2012
olddogs1964 wrote:
this country wont grow with two divided thoughts
The Federalists and the anit-Federalists.

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#118100 Nov 8, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Federalists and the anit-Federalists.
Excellent! People should find the reason that having a weak federal government didn't work. History is funny. It usually predicts future events.

For those of you that can't figure it out, look up why the Articles of Confederation did not work.
what

Lexington, SC

#118101 Nov 8, 2012
what
Uncle R

Allentown, PA

#118102 Nov 8, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
And what about giving certain industries subsidies? These come from the taxpayers. THey must be ok with that.
Taxpayers didn't have anything to do with it and most didn't agree with the bailouts and bankruptcy wasted with taxpayer money .

We lost a lot of white votes just like 4 years ago . The copulate to populate gang were 100 % and most don't pay taxes .

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118103 Nov 8, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Federal debt was NOT "on its way." You fool. It rose PRECISELY because of federal spending under Obama.$1 trillion plus deficits for four years didn't simply occur, like a hurricane. Obama and Pelosi/Reid built that.
And Pelosi/Reid had a jump start on it starting in 2007 when they controlled Congress.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118104 Nov 8, 2012
About Time wrote:
Where are the Republican posts? Oh, that's right, their candidate lost! Looking forward for the next 4 years of posts where the Republicans posters attempt to say the country is in freefall, redistribution is awful ect, ect, ect.
Sorry I can't be here 'round the clock. Some of us have to work in order for the libs to have their Obama-phones.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#118105 Nov 8, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
People see an overweight individual and wonder why they continue to over eat.
Americans see a nation in debt and listen to the sugar that Rush and Sean feed them about not needing to pay taxes.
Paying more taxes is not the way to eliminate the debt. The economy needs to grow. Bill Clinton was fortunate enough to be President when we had a booming economy. We were having a technological heyday at that time. That is the reason he was able to get the budget under control. A better economy translates into more tax revenue. What is needed now is an atmosphere that fosters a better economy. Raising taxes does not do that.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Earl 1,535,487
Trump Puddy Comment Worst Ever 9 min Earl 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Justice Dale 240,915
Trump Just Sux 1 hr They cannot kill ... 2
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 10,706
GOP: Kids should be financially independent soo... 4 hr Liar Don 9
Bottomless wife? 4 hr Kink 6

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages