Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,590
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. Full Story
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#117993 Nov 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets see, if the unemployment rate went up just before the election wouldn't that show that it honestly went down last month?
Romney is going to get it done on an extended vacation. Ryan is going to try and hold the House together for two more years. Neither will deliver their home state(s) while Obama and Biden will.
electoralvote.com
Obama - 281
Tossup - 42
Romney - 215
Crystal Ball has it:
Obama - 290/Romney - 248
Senate: Democrat - 53/Republican - 47
House: Democrat - 196/Republican - 239
With millions out of work.
With a 7.9% unemployment rate (40 months over 8%)
Multiple Trillion Dollar deficits
More the $16 Tril in debt
The Republians win nothing. NOTHING. How is that even possible?
Figures lie and liars figure.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#117995 Nov 5, 2012
A Czervik wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement alone qualifies you for the loony bin.
Hey Sabu, can you make a bull shot ?
Did somebody step on a duck?

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#117996 Nov 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Pitt, without redistribution of wealth, what happens to the economy?
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.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#117997 Nov 5, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
Obama has returned to the White House to monitor the storm.
We are saved, by Soetoro.
Yes, he's hunched over in the corner of the Situation Room sitting on a folding chair ,looking pensive. Large and in charge, that's our O!

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#117998 Nov 5, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow you are so not smart are you? So,what you are saying is that we are all better off if there are fewer people that have more of the wealth, even though history shows otherwie? And is would appear that the cooking of the books ended in 2009, January to be exact. The cost of the "wars",which were not addded to the Bush debt totals BTW, plus the cost of the Bush tax cuts,which unfortunately the President was strong armed into extending, are what have added to the debt more than anything else.
The only job that Romney/Ryan will get done will be to become obscure bad memories and the answer to a trivia question.
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.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#117999 Nov 5, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Went to the rally in PA last night, was a beautiful thing. When Mitt arrived the place went nuts.
Sure, but you should have seen overwhelming crowd of less than 200 that showed up at Stevie Wonder's benefit concert for O'blowzo. They were nuts, too! ;-)
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118000 Nov 5, 2012
In the third debate, what did Obama mean when he referred to Biden as his "current" vice president? Why hasn't the media picked up on that?
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.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Rogue Scholar 05 181,836
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 min scirocco 71,045
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,154,090
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,884
2 cops executed in new york 54 min The Pissed Citizen 1
More on the Eric Garner Saga 1 hr The Patriot 7
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Cowobunga 51,254
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:26 am PST

NBC Sports 8:26AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler
Bleacher Report11:56 AM
Eagles vs. Redskins: Live Score and Analysis for Philadelphia
Yahoo! Sports 5:54 PM
Eagles playoff hopes suffer with loss to Redskins
Bleacher Report 6:14 PM
RG3 Showing Enough to Remain Starter in WSH
CBS Sports 4:09 AM
Jay Cutler expected back with Bears in 2015, with new coaching staff