Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Jun 8, 2009 Read more: Newsday 109,551
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. Read more
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118059 Nov 7, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah we all will.. Traitor. In 2 years we'll have the house too, so its all good... Then we'll see some real progress for a change. This country will be great again..
Describe your vision of "great".

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118060 Nov 7, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama and his congressional henchman have done everything to promote the exact opposite. His reelection only makes that worse.
This country has just turned a corner idealistically. To darkness. No pun intended.
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.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118061 Nov 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<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.
That's putting it mildly. I call it the completion of socialist indocrination.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118062 Nov 7, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
In this country we spell it with an s. What country are you originally from?
How is it spelled in the Constitution?
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118063 Nov 7, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn dude. You make way too much sense. Most of these sheep have no idea what you are saying, but Rush and Sean say that you are a bad person for thinking this way. But it doesn't take a lot of high level thought to see the complete logic.
Not surprising, this coming from the PRM.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118064 Nov 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Your understanding is incorrect.
The federal debt was 56.56% of GDP in FY2000 at the beginning of the Bush administration, and rose to 69.50% of GDP in FY 2008. This is an increase of 22.9% over 8 years, or 2.86 %/ann on average.
Under Obama, The federal debt has exploded to 85.20% of GDP in FY2009, 97.82% of GDP in FY 2011, and is estimated to hit 107.84% of GDP in FY 2014 and essentially remain at that unsustainable level for the remainder of Obama's reign and as far as the eye can see thereafter. This is an increase of over 50% during Obama's 1st 4 year term alone - more than DOUBLE the additional debt hung on the necks of the American people by the Bush administration, in HALF the time.
This is the future the American people, in their wisdom, have voted themselves into.
Here's the data, for your easy reference:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_...
FY2009 was bush's last budget year. FY2002 was his first budget year.

The Fiscal Year busget begins in October of the preceding year, so the FY2009 budget began on October 1, 2008 or about 4 months before Obama took office and 1 month before the election even took place.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118065 Nov 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Sufficient for what? And who is to say?
The economy says so and the economy is also the judge. If you are happy with the economy then enough is being redistributed.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118066 Nov 7, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
That's putting it mildly. I call it the completion of socialist indocrination.
I call it the failure of the Republican Party to present a credible alternative.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#118067 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is impossible not to redistribute when you tax. It is inherit in taxation.
False. Taking the federal income tax as an example, a simple flat tax has no income redistributive effect.
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inability to think through things like this is one reason Republicans loat the election.....for the PResidency, the Senate and the House.
Doubtful. Much more likely due to the inability of rubes like you to think through things like this sufficiently not to buy into the class warfare and other snakeoil pitches drummed up by the permanent professional political class to whom you seem content to keep surrendering more and more of your wealth and freedoms.
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rediostribution should occur until the economy is healthy and vibrant with lots of creativity and the middle class is large and living well again.
Congratulations. You've just described a free market economy.
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at my second sentence. An economy based on consumption works best when people spend money. The middle class is largely out of money....those that still have jobs that is. Redistribution, preferably through higher wages and more jobs would put money in the hands of the middle class where it will be spent.
How is it class warfare to talk of the need to redistribute wealth and you think it is not class warfare to support policies which allow wealth to accumulate at the top and not encourage redistribution?
You analysis is simplistic and sophomoric, completely ignoring the fact that the US economy, US business, and the US middle class is merely part of a highly integrated and highly competitive global economy. The US middle class is losing ground not because of anything that your leftist heroes in Washington are going to change with taxes, but because they're increasingly non-competitive with foreign skilled labor.

Your simpleton's prescription of wealth redistribution as some kind of magic restorative panacea is just silly. You can redistribute wealth to your heart's content - all you'll be accomplishing is accelerating the US middle class's decline into economic serfdom.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118068 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it spelled in the Constitution?
This is the year 2012. You made a mistake, now come clean, you fuzzy little foreigner.
About Time

New York, NY

#118069 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I call it the failure of the Republican Party to present a credible alternative.
Disagree. Romney was the most credible of the Republican candidates that ran for POTUS. Think about the other candidates that made the attempt to run. It wasn't close. A reminder of the 1996 POTUS race. Republicans didn't have a candidate so they threw their support to Dole.

This POTUS had the weakest poll numbers leading to the POTUS campaign season in many categories. A very winnable election for the Republicans. Their candidate couldn't sell his vision to those voters that could've been swayed to vote his way. You can attack the POTUS record only so much. The American public wants more than an attack on the record.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118070 Nov 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Taking the federal income tax as an example, a simple flat tax has no income redistributive effect.
<quoted text>
Doubtful. Much more likely due to the inability of rubes like you to think through things like this sufficiently not to buy into the class warfare and other snakeoil pitches drummed up by the permanent professional political class to whom you seem content to keep surrendering more and more of your wealth and freedoms.
<quoted text>
Congratulations. You've just described a free market economy.
<quoted text>
You analysis is simplistic and sophomoric, completely ignoring the fact that the US economy, US business, and the US middle class is merely part of a highly integrated and highly competitive global economy. The US middle class is losing ground not because of anything that your leftist heroes in Washington are going to change with taxes, but because they're increasingly non-competitive with foreign skilled labor.
Your simpleton's prescription of wealth redistribution as some kind of magic restorative panacea is just silly. You can redistribute wealth to your heart's content - all you'll be accomplishing is accelerating the US middle class's decline into economic serfdom.
False. The only tax that does not redistribute is the tax that is returned 100% to the person that paid it. And if you do that, why are you taxing to begin with?

False. Just like you are stuck on misunderstanding redistribution of wealth/income. There is natural redistribution (buying groceries at the store) and then there is redistribution that is forced (taxation) and there is redistribution that is encouraged (allowing employee's wages to be deducted from taxable income encourages the hiring of employee's).

False. I described an economy that is working well, regardless of the type. As an example the US has never, ever had a "free market" economy. We have always had a regulated market economy based on free market principles.

False. While global competition does play "a" role, it is not nearly as strong of a role as you give it credit for.

As for your attack on the level of my posts, they are certainly as least as literate and knowledgeable as your replies and in many ways written at a higher level of understanding.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118071 Nov 7, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the year 2012. You made a mistake, now come clean, you fuzzy little foreigner.
Did you denote earlier that the year was important to our spelling?

When it gets to the point that you are correcting my spelling you are losing the argument. Should I correct your unnecessary coma?

Yes, currently in the US of A defence is spelled defense. So how is that English?

It was not always that way, in the Constitution it is spelled "defence." I had someone else try and correct me when I was quoting the Constitution.

When did we change it and why?

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#118072 Nov 7, 2012
About Time wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagree. Romney was the most credible of the Republican candidates that ran for POTUS. Think about the other candidates that made the attempt to run. It wasn't close. A reminder of the 1996 POTUS race. Republicans didn't have a candidate so they threw their support to Dole.
This POTUS had the weakest poll numbers leading to the POTUS campaign season in many categories. A very winnable election for the Republicans. Their candidate couldn't sell his vision to those voters that could've been swayed to vote his way. You can attack the POTUS record only so much. The American public wants more than an attack on the record.
Credible alternative in their policies. It was not only Romney that lost, they failed to gain control of the Senate and that should have been yet another sure thing. They failed to make a gain in the House......so far, another failure.

The fact that the did not take the Senate and did not gain in the House with this economy says that it was not Romney, it was the party itself.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118073 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you denote earlier that the year was important to our spelling?
When it gets to the point that you are correcting my spelling you are losing the argument. Should I correct your unnecessary coma?
Yes, currently in the US of A defence is spelled defense. So how is that English?
It was not always that way, in the Constitution it is spelled "defence." I had someone else try and correct me when I was quoting the Constitution.
When did we change it and why?
Comma has two "m"s.

So do you spell everything with 18th Century spellings?
About Time

New York, NY

#118074 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Credible alternative in their policies. It was not only Romney that lost, they failed to gain control of the Senate and that should have been yet another sure thing. They failed to make a gain in the House......so far, another failure.

The fact that the did not take the Senate and did not gain in the House with this economy says that it was not Romney, it was the party itself.
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.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#118075 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Credible alternative in their policies. It was not only Romney that lost, they failed to gain control of the Senate and that should have been yet another sure thing. They failed to make a gain in the House......so far, another failure.
The fact that the did not take the Senate and did not gain in the House with this economy says that it was not Romney, it was the party itself.
Yes, the Ministry of Propaganda has reached full strength.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#118076 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
By encouraging private industry to create jobs and pay higher wages.
There is a reason that wage disparity increased in the 20's and 30's and decreased between the 40's and the 60's. Then started increasing again.
And jobs were created throughout those periods with the exception of a few years after 1928. Kind of comparable to today.
Yeah. It was called WWII.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#118077 Nov 7, 2012
we republicings still rule and you others wil learn the way . you wanted to play hard ball so now game is on . suffer
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#118079 Nov 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
FY2009 was bush's last budget year. FY2002 was his first budget year.
The Fiscal Year busget begins in October of the preceding year, so the FY2009 budget began on October 1, 2008 or about 4 months before Obama took office and 1 month before the election even took place.
Yeah yeah yeah - we've been all over the whole "FY2009 wasn't Obama's fault" dodge ad nauseum here before.

Uninteresting.

Whatev - take whatever FY periods you want and try to spin them any way you like - I linked the hard numbers for all of 'em. The inescapable truth remains - federal debt exploded to 107% of GDP under Obama, a level not seen since the heart of WWII and dwarfing the rate at which the preceding administration piled up debt - and is projected to remain there through the end of Obama's 2nd term.

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) 6 min sonicfilter 1,216,732
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 17 min Community Disorga... 52,705
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 20 min rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min Rogue Scholar 05 186,858
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 2 hr RJS 8,010
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 9 hr Cold Front 69,605
amy april 17 12 hr duke86 2
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]