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
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

Piscataway, 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.

“2014: The year we bashed Obozo”

Since: Dec 07

Daytona Beach

#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

Piscataway, 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

Penfield, 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

Melbourne, 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.

“2014: The year we bashed Obozo”

Since: Dec 07

Daytona Beach

#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

Mclean, 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.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118824 May 1, 2013
More from the right wing "intelligentsia":

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."

Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.

"In the end it didnít pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,Ē Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.

Yeah, there's some grown up reasoning. It's not even about him being re-elected anymore.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118825 May 1, 2013
"Shock poll: Wealthy, not middle class, support Obama"

You should only be shocked by this if you only pay attention to his words and ignore his actions. Sadly, that would mean that most Americans will be shocked.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-weal...
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118826 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!
And you might want to consider yourself in the description you assigned to me, projection maybe? I mean, really, you're the one quoting Eliot, right? In any case feeling important on an anonymous forum, I don't know how one would get there? Or do you think you're the only one who knows this anonymous?

That sounds more like someone who is "consumed by a need think to think well of themselves." On the other hand, I personally think we should all strive to think well of ourselves. Not to the point of being consumed by it, though. I say go for it.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118828 May 1, 2013
nac wrote:
"Shock poll: Wealthy, not middle class, support Obama"
You should only be shocked by this if you only pay attention to his words and ignore his actions. Sadly, that would mean that most Americans will be shocked.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-weal...
Sorry, but the Washington Examiner is a little bit biased for my taste. Thought it would be for you too, since you claim to be an "independent".

Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_E...
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118829 May 2, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the Washington Examiner is a little bit biased for my taste. Thought it would be for you too, since you claim to be an "independent".
Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_E...
The poll was conducted by The Economist and YouGov. Are they "righties?"

Wouldn't you also consider Politico right-wing? How can you trust what they say? Oh no!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#118830 May 2, 2013
Not even the Stepford-element on the right can refute the building strength in our current economic recovery.....led by home construction and auto sales.....and despite the treachery of House republican's, obstructing anything that might aid the recovery, the people or this President......
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118831 May 2, 2013
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told a packed house at the Back Nine Cafe on Wednesday to fight to take government control back from big business.

"How do Fortune 500 companies pay zero in taxes while college loans go up to 6 percent?" she asked. "This game is rigged."

The consumer must "get up and fight," she said. "You've all got to be there to fight."

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/5/2/eliz...

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 23 min Eric 71,044
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Cowobunga 51,254
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Brian_G 49,220
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr Uzi 68,883
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 hr John Galt 1,154,077
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Guru 181,833
New Beach Boys song. 14 hr The Beach Boys 1
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 1:01 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:01PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
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