Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109499 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.

Just Saying

Central Islip, NY

#118794 Apr 28, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're example is....? Nothing.
You're one of those right wing twits we've all become so familiar with and who I have been describing on this thread, who thinks that all that's required to refute an argument is to merely say "Oh, that's drivel"
So, since you nor any of the rest of you right wing twits have enough education or imagination to understand that you are the butt's of my criticism and that I have no interest in what you "think" since so little of what you share in this forum has even the remotest hint of thinking behind it, I invite you to not bother responding. I'll make posts to inform those who want or need insights, information and scientifically documented proofs other than the your monolithic cultish views on the American condition.
I'll be happy to debate an issue with anyone who brings an attempt at rational, informed discussion. The rest can fck yourselves.
So much arrogance and condescension in a single post. You've really outdone yourself this time. Typical smug elitist, thinking you're so much better than everyone else.

You're a legend in your own mind!

By the way, if you don't want to deal with those whom you consider to be your intellectual inferiors, stay off Topix, and stick to Mensa!
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118795 Apr 28, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're example is....? Nothing.
You're one of those right wing twits we've all become so familiar with and who I have been describing on this thread, who thinks that all that's required to refute an argument is to merely say "Oh, that's drivel"
So, since you nor any of the rest of you right wing twits have enough education or imagination to understand that you are the butt's of my criticism and that I have no interest in what you "think" since so little of what you share in this forum has even the remotest hint of thinking behind it, I invite you to not bother responding. I'll make posts to inform those who want or need insights, information and scientifically documented proofs other than the your monolithic cultish views on the American condition.
I'll be happy to debate an issue with anyone who brings an attempt at rational, informed discussion. The rest can fck yourselves.
joe, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why the example and the statement you posted are flawed?

I'll explain:

Your quote: "Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing."

Right off the bat, it's nonsense. And here's why... It says, "accused by the uninformed" yet does not identify who these "uninformed accusers" are, nor when/where the "uninformed accusation" was made. It's a manufactured boogeyman. DRIVEL.

Next, the author tries to prove his winning argument by pointing out that, "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in."

Multiple problems here, as well. Specifically: The SS system is DESIGNED so that some people will pay more in than they'll receive in benefit. It has to be that way. Over the course of their respective careers, a doctor is going to pay more into SS than the person that answers the phone at his office. When they both pass away, the doctor will likely have received less than he paid in while his receptionist might get more than they paid in. So joe, this simple fact of life does not prove wrong the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman. Additional DRIVEL.

Next problem, the example of "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes." Problems here too, joe... have you figured them out? If not, I'll share. "Average wages" isn't defined. We can only surmise that it is in the middle, right in the fat part of the bell curve. If you take the low end of what *could* be considered average, his statement might be true. If we take the high end, it might & it might not. But again, we don't even know what "average" is for the purposes of the discussion, so who knows? Point is, it is broad and vague and cannot be proven nor disputed. That makes it DRIVEL, joe.

Additionally, aren't typical two-earner couples the exact demographic that would be expected to pay more in than they receive? Of course they are. That's why using them as the example to disprove the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman IS DRIVEL.

Get it? It has nothing to do with right wing, left wing, or hot & spicy Buffalo wing... it has everything to do with using your brain!
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118797 Apr 29, 2013
The GOP at work advancing their knowledge oriented agenda:

The Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)(values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE)(mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

The Texas GOP doesn't want public school teachers to help students think for themselves. Because that might encourage original thought. It might encourage them to question those in authority, such as parents or politicians. It might help them master difficult subjects, but we wouldn't want that if it undermines “parental authority.”

“Go Ahead Liberal, Make My Day”

Since: Dec 07

Florida...home of Trump

#118800 Apr 29, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wondering why you can't answer or comment on the post. That your ONLY interest is to demean the bearer of the item. I'm guessing it's because you don't understand what was written. Oh well.
Just wondering why you can't express yourself without stealing it from someone else....oh, well
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#118802 Apr 29, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
joe, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why the example and the statement you posted are flawed?
I'll explain:
Your quote: "Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing."
Right off the bat, it's nonsense. And here's why... It says, "accused by the uninformed" yet does not identify who these "uninformed accusers" are, nor when/where the "uninformed accusation" was made. It's a manufactured boogeyman. DRIVEL.
Next, the author tries to prove his winning argument by pointing out that, "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in."
Multiple problems here, as well. Specifically: The SS system is DESIGNED so that some people will pay more in than they'll receive in benefit. It has to be that way. Over the course of their respective careers, a doctor is going to pay more into SS than the person that answers the phone at his office. When they both pass away, the doctor will likely have received less than he paid in while his receptionist might get more than they paid in. So joe, this simple fact of life does not prove wrong the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman. Additional DRIVEL.
Next problem, the example of "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes." Problems here too, joe... have you figured them out? If not, I'll share. "Average wages" isn't defined. We can only surmise that it is in the middle, right in the fat part of the bell curve. If you take the low end of what *could* be considered average, his statement might be true. If we take the high end, it might & it might not. But again, we don't even know what "average" is for the purposes of the discussion, so who knows? Point is, it is broad and vague and cannot be proven nor disputed. That makes it DRIVEL, joe.
Additionally, aren't typical two-earner couples the exact demographic that would be expected to pay more in than they receive? Of course they are. That's why using them as the example to disprove the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman IS DRIVEL.
Get it? It has nothing to do with right wing, left wing, or hot & spicy Buffalo wing... it has everything to do with using your brain!
BOOM!

Nice smack-down based on reasoned argument and fact.

He won't answer. He'll just move on to posting more cut-n-paste drivel.

“Go Ahead Liberal, Make My Day”

Since: Dec 07

Florida...home of Trump

#118804 Apr 29, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The rest can fck yourselves.
was this cut and pasted too ?
shameless-li

Denver, CO

#118805 Apr 29, 2013
benselys reality wrote:
ask the too many black woman struggling to get by on welfare what value a black mans word has??
maybe the struggling black women should have kept their legs closed when listening to what some lying black man was telling her at the time...who's the one has no value....answer: both
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118807 Apr 29, 2013
Guinness Drinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wondering why you can't express yourself without stealing it from someone else....oh, well
I've "expressed" myself in the past. No longer. I post what I want. You don't like it, shove it. Not a one of you do anything but suck the far right media garbage and produce nothing of interest. You ONLY try and refute what I bring.

So once again, shove it righty. Stop commenting on my posts if you're to lame to refute them other than criticizing me.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#118808 Apr 29, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I've "expressed" myself in the past. No longer. I post what I want. You don't like it, shove it. Not a one of you do anything but suck the far right media garbage and produce nothing of interest. You ONLY try and refute what I bring.
So once again, shove it righty. Stop commenting on my posts if you're to lame to refute them other than criticizing me.
Refute this Pothead:
This story from Fox News...is relative to the 2008 election.... And leads one to ask, WHAT did the pinko commie party do for 2012 election to get the fraudulent dictator reelected?? I will never ever believe that Barack Obama was legitimately elected to be our president....the question really....WHEN IS SOMEBODY GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND GET HIM OUT OF OUR LIVES FOR GOOD????
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.
According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who plead guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/of...
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118811 Apr 29, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I've "expressed" myself in the past. No longer. I post what I want. You don't like it, shove it. Not a one of you do anything but suck the far right media garbage and produce nothing of interest. You ONLY try and refute what I bring.
So once again, shove it righty. Stop commenting on my posts if you're to lame to refute them other than criticizing me.
I refuted the content one of your posts. Would you like to debate my analysis?
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118812 Apr 30, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I refuted the content one of your posts. Would you like to debate my analysis?
You didn't refute anything except your arrogance, once again. All you did was say you didn't believe what was written. And then proceeded with your elaborate MISREADING of the whole article.

I guess you were out of the country during the last election and Republican "debates". That's where the right wing candidates fell all over themselves claiming that 47% of Americans were "takers". Taking more than they paid in. But you might have had more information if you'd read the report: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412660-Socia...

Nothing in the post refuted the design of SS. It merely pointed out the idiocy of those right wing economically challenged fools just described (Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) who bellowed their contempt for those Americans who relied on Social Security and other programs as being wrong in their statements that recipients of entitlements were "Getting something for nothing?"

The part you conviently left out was the identity of those who really were getting something for nothing: The rich. Tax expenditures, which are deductions and exemptions that primarily benefit the highest-earning individuals, cost about 8 percent of the GDP, the same percentage that goes to Social Security and Medicare.

If just one of the tax breaks for the rich, the $113,700 cap on Payroll Tax, were eliminated, Social Security would be almost entirely funded for the next 75 years.

I know you think your answer was really clever and well thought out, but like so many from the right your arguments totally rely on stovepiped "beliefs" and the lack of economic sophistication.

The income for a family of four on Temprary Assistance for Needly Families (TANF) is less than what the average member of the Forbes Top 20 made in one second at the office. ONE SECOND.

The 47 percent don't own stocks. They don't own anything. The so-called 'takers' have ZERO wealth. The value of any assets owned by nearly half of the country is surpassed by their debt.

So you go on trying to refute facts with your fantasies, keep trying to pretend that the whole right wing noise machine hasn't been attacking and trying to destroy the middle class, in the end you will have to abide by reality. Whether you "like" it or not.

“Go Ahead Liberal, Make My Day”

Since: Dec 07

Florida...home of Trump

#118813 Apr 30, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I've "expressed" myself in the past. No longer. I post what I want. You don't like it, shove it. Not a one of you do anything but suck the far right media garbage and produce nothing of interest. You ONLY try and refute what I bring.
So once again, shove it righty. Stop commenting on my posts if you're to lame to refute them other than criticizing me.
poor Joe the Drama Queen, everybody's picking on him; must be Day 28. Do you need some Midol ?
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118814 Apr 30, 2013
joe, I gotta hand it to ya. Even when your nonsensical posts are proven nonsensical with logic, reason, and fact... you stand by them. You keep fighting the good fight against that big bad right wing boogeyman!
ItsOnlyMoneyJust PrintMore

Fairport, NY

#118815 Apr 30, 2013
I will believe it when I see it, as for now I will just assume its another of many lies
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#118816 Apr 30, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't refute anything except your arrogance, once again. All you did was say you didn't believe what was written. And then proceeded with your elaborate MISREADING of the whole article.
I guess you were out of the country during the last election and Republican "debates". That's where the right wing candidates fell all over themselves claiming that 47% of Americans were "takers". Taking more than they paid in. But you might have had more information if you'd read the report: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412660-Socia...
Nothing in the post refuted the design of SS. It merely pointed out the idiocy of those right wing economically challenged fools just described (Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) who bellowed their contempt for those Americans who relied on Social Security and other programs as being wrong in their statements that recipients of entitlements were "Getting something for nothing?"
The part you conviently left out was the identity of those who really were getting something for nothing: The rich. Tax expenditures, which are deductions and exemptions that primarily benefit the highest-earning individuals, cost about 8 percent of the GDP, the same percentage that goes to Social Security and Medicare.
If just one of the tax breaks for the rich, the $113,700 cap on Payroll Tax, were eliminated, Social Security would be almost entirely funded for the next 75 years.
I know you think your answer was really clever and well thought out, but like so many from the right your arguments totally rely on stovepiped "beliefs" and the lack of economic sophistication.
The income for a family of four on Temprary Assistance for Needly Families (TANF) is less than what the average member of the Forbes Top 20 made in one second at the office. ONE SECOND.
The 47 percent don't own stocks. They don't own anything. The so-called 'takers' have ZERO wealth. The value of any assets owned by nearly half of the country is surpassed by their debt.
So you go on trying to refute facts with your fantasies, keep trying to pretend that the whole right wing noise machine hasn't been attacking and trying to destroy the middle class, in the end you will have to abide by reality. Whether you "like" it or not.
Sounds like justification for your dependence on the wealth of others to subsidize your unproductive life.

You were correct in your statement:

The 47 percent don't own stocks. They don't own anything.

But you conveniently left out the fact that they also take in services (funded by the federal income tax which they do not pay) more than they contribute ... which would be nothing.

“Go Ahead Liberal, Make My Day”

Since: Dec 07

Florida...home of Trump

#118818 Apr 30, 2013
nac wrote:
joe, I gotta hand it to ya. Even when your nonsensical posts are proven nonsensical with logic, reason, and fact... you stand by them. You keep fighting the good fight against that big bad right wing boogeyman!
Joe knows winning the good fight will get him an Obamacare exemption
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118819 Apr 30, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like justification for your dependence on the wealth of others to subsidize your unproductive life.
You were correct in your statement:
The 47 percent don't own stocks. They don't own anything.
But you conveniently left out the fact that they also take in services (funded by the federal income tax which they do not pay) more than they contribute ... which would be nothing.
Yeah, another stupid re-statement of the fox news garbage about the 47% not contributing. Like I said, you guys are STOOPID. Not worth a discussion but I will point out one of the FACTS that fox news always manages to leave out of their propaganda and that would be the withholding tax that American workers have deducted from their pay checks. That is a tax, tool. And, unlike the rich, they have no way of dodging it, off-shoring it, hedging against, post-poning it. It's a tax and it's deducted.

So here's your little fox news quote: "But you conveniently left out the fact that they also take in services (funded by the federal income tax which they do not pay) more than they contribute ... which would be nothing." Now open your mouth some more, let a little more stupidity burble forth. Twit.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118820 Apr 30, 2013
More laughable crap (if the consequences weren't so serious) from the heads of conservatives:

A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/... ) examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them.

With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same light-bulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving light-bulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular light bulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one.
The researchers believe the result to be indicative of the heavy politicization of climate issues. Put more simply, it means that conservatives are willing to base even the most minor of decisions in large part on whether they think the result will piss imaginary liberals off; we've just re-discovered the guiding philosophy of the entire post-Reagan conservative movement.(It also raises an interesting question that, as far as I can discern, was left untested: If you advertised one bulb specifically as being bad for the environment, would conservatives be more likely to buy it? There may be an untapped market for a bulb that promises "this light bulb personally clubs baby seals" or "this bulb will help give asthma to some poor Midwestern kid living near a power plant.")
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#118821 May 1, 2013
joe wrote:
(More cut-n-paste lib prog claptrap trimmed)...

... it means that conservatives are willing to base even the most minor of decisions in large part on whether they think the result will piss imaginary liberals off; we've just re-discovered the guiding philosophy of the entire post-Reagan conservative movement.(It also raises an interesting question that, as far as I can discern, was left untested: If you advertised one bulb specifically as being bad for the environment, would conservatives be more likely to buy it? There may be an untapped market for a bulb that promises "this light bulb personally clubs baby seals" or "this bulb will help give asthma to some poor Midwestern kid living near a power plant.")
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

-- T. S. Eliot

Our joe is certainly consumed by a need to think well of himself.

Onward against those eeeevul righties, joe!
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118823 May 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
-- T. S. Eliot
Our joe is certainly consumed by a need to think well of himself.
Onward against those eeeevul righties, joe!
Listen, Teddy, if you've got a point to make about the items I point out, then make it, without resorting to right wing "talking points". Otherwise, all you're doing is the same old fox news crap of trying to trash the "voice" not the "content".

America is becoming less bigoted, less prejudiced, less narrow, more accepting of differences, more tolerant, and more savvy to the wiles of propaganda machines like fox. All this while conservatives are becoming extinct, dying off, having to resort to anti-American, anti-democratic means to maintain power.

I can appreciate the dilemma that smart conservatives find themselves in. They aren't as loony and antediluvian as the party is devolving into, but it's the only party you have. Should be an opportunity for a new party, but for now, I get it.

But you guys are, sadly, becoming more and more like the worst of your leadership. Everytime some bigoted right wing idiot says something retrograde on this thread, you remain silent, making yourself part of the worst of what the "new" Republican party is trying to sell.

I hope you aren't all becoming Louie Gohmert who "opposes gun control because gay marriage leads to bestiality."

or - Frank Lucas who wonders if there's an Obama 'Conspiracy to Buy Up All the Bullets So They're Not Available to Us'.

or - Steve Stockman latching onto a chain email conspiracy theory about the CSCOPE curriculum, which according to detractors promotes Islam, Communism and anti-Americanism.

or - well, you get the point.

I guess I'd be more willing to discuss the failings, mistakes and stupidity on the left if you guys were more willing to cop to the idiocies on the right. But, so far, I haven't seen that.

Oh well.

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) 26 min Cheech the Conser... 1,496,784
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 39 min Obama bin ladder 237,268
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr _Zoey_ 10,335
will chicago have a march 4 hr Happy Buyer 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Well Well 63,270
IT'S Really really true, nancy pelosi............ 11 hr HasALargePenis 10
The Mexicans stay home 11 hr More-Truth NoLies 24

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages