Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109543 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.

joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118882 May 7, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>Another typical response from you, a nasty attack instead of responding rationally to points made by people with opposing views. You don't know me at all, but you dare to question my patriotism and service because I disagreed with you on issues I consider important to our country? You didn't address a single thing I said, but merely repeated your talking points. It appears that you have trouble with reading comprehension, as well as serious anger management issues that you really should do something about.
Your side talks about compromise, but won't give an inch, while expecting the other side to always cave in on everything. Compromise is supposed to be a two way street, but not as practiced by the Democrats. Your comments are hateful and vile, which says a lot about what kind of a person you are, and is nothing to be proud of. Attempting to reason with you is obviously futile, and I won't waste any more time doing so.
You're what the Scots call a "bloody eejit". I'm sure that even you can figure out what that means.
You possess absolutely no subtlety of thought, do you? I didn't question your patriotism because I disagreed with your "issues". I don't care a whit about your right wing fantasies and paranoia. I was pointing out the FACT that your declared patriotism is just so much bullsh*t. It doesn't mean anything on an anonymous forum such as this. It's merely self-serving and un-provable. Get it? It's telling people you're a patriotic American by wearing a little metal flag on your lapel.

And what intransigence are you referring to when you say "my side" doesn't give an inch"? Are you so thick that you haven't noticed the number of filibusters the Republicans have foisted on the country. Never-mind, I'm pretty sure that fox doesn't report that and you have no other source of information it's plain to see.

So good luck granpa. Keep a stiff upper lip and keep telling everyone how patriotic you are as you do everything in your meager power to bring down this country. Disgusting.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118883 May 7, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I get it. The left plays lip service to the poor so they're scum but the right comes right out and trashes the poor so they're okay by you? You agree with privatizing Social Security, cutting food assistance programs for poor single mothers, trashing Head
Start? And, as you proclaimed, you want to kill Obamacare and replace it with.... Nothing. Those who can't afford the most expensive health insurance in the world should, as an audience in Texas declared at one of the Republican primary debates, let them just die.
If you're trying to change the status quo I'd like to hear your method. All you do is support the right wing agenda, trash the left and then proclaim how un-biased and objective you are. Get a clue, the left may not be as effective as they could be but the right has turned into goose-stepping fascists.
There's no reward for declaring two sides equal when one of the sides has clearly gone over the edge. One of these days you're gonna have to pick a side even if it's the lesser of two evils 'cause there ain't any third party coming to rescue your b.s. "bi-partisan" sensibility.
I criticized both sides. You then got offended that I criticized the left and incorrectly assumed that I was in favor of the right. Again.

You still don't understand what I'm talking about... and it seems you never will. Not everyone is a follower like you, joe. I don't need to "pick a side" because I can think for myself.
shameless-li

Denver, CO

#118885 May 7, 2013
joe wrote:
Another example of financial pornography. While nearly 15 million Americans still can't find jobs due to the 2008 Wall Street-created crash, the top hedge manager, David Tepper, earned $1,057,692 an HOUR in 2012 -- that's as much as the average American family makes in 21 years!
America's new math: 1 Wall Street hour = 21 years of hard work for the rest of us.
'Splain that, righty.
i could never figure out why a ball player gets paid more in one year than a brain surgeon would get paid in a lifetime...

supply and demand???
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118886 May 7, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
i could never figure out why a ball player gets paid more in one year than a brain surgeon would get paid in a lifetime...
supply and demand???
Media entertainment. And media celebrity. That's where the big bucks are, out side of Wall St.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118887 May 7, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I criticized both sides. You then got offended that I criticized the left and incorrectly assumed that I was in favor of the right. Again.
You still don't understand what I'm talking about... and it seems you never will. Not everyone is a follower like you, joe. I don't need to "pick a side" because I can think for myself.
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I criticized both sides. You then got offended that I criticized the left and incorrectly assumed that I was in favor of the right.
I think you have a comprhension problem or are just plain willfully ignorant. Not sure.

Here's what you said:..."Obama and the politicians on the left, just like the politicians on the right, ONLY care about the big banks, Wall Street, and the ultra-wealthy... but the left pays lip service to the middle & lower classes... so it's better (in your mind). Not in reality though."...

What you're saying is that generally speaking both sides are bad but then you just can't help but make a special case out the left with this:
..."but the left pays lip service to the middle & lower classes."
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't understand what I'm talking about... and it seems you never will. Not everyone is a follower like you, joe. I don't need to "pick a side" because I can think for myself.
I understand completely what you're saying because you keep trying to claim that you're non-partisan but it's obvious that's just so much bs. Like I said, if you don't prefer one side over the other stay home, don't vote, and please refrain from telling us how corrupt the political system is. We all know that. But when it comes to voting (you aside) people have to choose. And I prefer the side that claims to represent the middle class (imperfect thought they may be) rather than the side that thinks only the rich deserve consideration and special treatment.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118888 May 8, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Just one day after Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote a letter urging lawmakers to reject a slate of Wall Street deregulation measures, nearly two dozen Democrats joined Republicans to approve the package in the House Financial Services Committee.

The legislation would repeal several sections of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law targeting derivatives, the complex financial transactions at the heart of the 2008 banking collapse. Similar measures have already cleared the House Agriculture Committee with broad bipartisan backing.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118889 May 8, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I think you have a comprhension problem or are just plain willfully ignorant. Not sure.
Here's what you said:..."Obama and the politicians on the left, just like the politicians on the right, ONLY care about the big banks, Wall Street, and the ultra-wealthy... but the left pays lip service to the middle & lower classes... so it's better (in your mind). Not in reality though."...
What you're saying is that generally speaking both sides are bad but then you just can't help but make a special case out the left with this:
..."but the left pays lip service to the middle & lower classes."
<quoted text>
I understand completely what you're saying because you keep trying to claim that you're non-partisan but it's obvious that's just so much bs. Like I said, if you don't prefer one side over the other stay home, don't vote, and please refrain from telling us how corrupt the political system is. We all know that. But when it comes to voting (you aside) people have to choose. And I prefer the side that claims to represent the middle class (imperfect thought they may be) rather than the side that thinks only the rich deserve consideration and special treatment.
So you're saying that you don't mind corrupt leftists, and you don't like corrupt "righties." Duly noted.

I don't like any corruption... and in your mind that makes me a "righty." Duly noted.

I think we're done here. Feel free to move on to your next cut-n-paste.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118890 May 8, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that you don't mind corrupt leftists, and you don't like corrupt "righties." Duly noted.
I don't like any corruption... and in your mind that makes me a "righty." Duly noted.
I think we're done here. Feel free to move on to your next cut-n-paste.
Yeah, great, so you don't have any party affiliation, and you don't vote. I get it.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118891 May 8, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, great, so you don't have any party affiliation, and you don't vote. I get it.
I vote.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118892 May 8, 2013
joe wrote:
WASHINGTON -- Just one day after Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote a letter urging lawmakers to reject a slate of Wall Street deregulation measures, nearly two dozen Democrats joined Republicans to approve the package in the House Financial Services Committee.
The legislation would repeal several sections of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law targeting derivatives, the complex financial transactions at the heart of the 2008 banking collapse. Similar measures have already cleared the House Agriculture Committee with broad bipartisan backing.
Once again... Republicans and Democrats in Washington can agree on something! And once again that "something" hurts the middle class. They agree to De-regulate Wall Street & big banks... what a surprise!!!

Both corrupt parties have the back of the corrupt institutions that fund them? Wow!

Yet all of you followers continue to support the parties that are actively and openly working against you. When will you wake up??
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118893 May 9, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again... Republicans and Democrats in Washington can agree on something! And once again that "something" hurts the middle class. They agree to De-regulate Wall Street & big banks... what a surprise!!!
Both corrupt parties have the back of the corrupt institutions that fund them? Wow!
Yet all of you followers continue to support the parties that are actively and openly working against you. When will you wake up??
You are too stupid to believe. I posted the article to point out the truth of your statement and you attack.???
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118894 May 9, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too stupid to believe. I posted the article to point out the truth of your statement and you attack.???
I didn't "attack" anyone. I just asked when you and your ilk would wake up. Calm down joey.
shameless-li

United States

#118895 May 9, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again... Republicans and Democrats in Washington can agree on something! And once again that "something" hurts the middle class. They agree to De-regulate Wall Street & big banks... what a surprise!!!
Both corrupt parties have the back of the corrupt institutions that fund them? Wow!
Yet all of you followers continue to support the parties that are actively and openly working against you. When will you wake up??
i don't stick to any party line. i try to make my OWN decisions on what candidate seems to be the most honest and believable at the time. it's just going to get worse, first it's the dems vs the reps and now it seems to be the blacks vs the whites.

i agree with you that there are no parties working for the people anymore. they just work in their own best interests...
we're screwed no matter who run the country.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118896 May 9, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
i don't stick to any party line. i try to make my OWN decisions on what candidate seems to be the most honest and believable at the time. it's just going to get worse, first it's the dems vs the reps and now it seems to be the blacks vs the whites.
i agree with you that there are no parties working for the people anymore. they just work in their own best interests...
we're screwed no matter who run the country.
Exactly right, Republicans and Democrats serve the same master. And if you're not ultra-wealthy... it ain't you! The masses get distracted by all of the political-football nonsense bickering that they don't notice that both sides are slaves to the big banks while paying lip service to their constituents.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118897 May 10, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
i don't stick to any party line. i try to make my OWN decisions on what candidate seems to be the most honest and believable at the time. it's just going to get worse, first it's the dems vs the reps and now it seems to be the blacks vs the whites.
i agree with you that there are no parties working for the people anymore. they just work in their own best interests...
we're screwed no matter who run the country.
Get rid of the Citizen United SCOTUS ruling. New legislation taking money out of elections. Every candidate gets the same amount of money, equal amount of free radio and tv and a few debates.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118898 May 10, 2013
Republican lawmakers asked increasingly tough questions today as they held another day of hearings to investigate, in the words of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California),“Hillary Clinton’s suspiciously high poll numbers and what can be done to make them lower.”

“With the help of Fox News, we have brutally attacked Hillary Clinton for months, and yet she remains more popular than ever,” Rep. Issa said.“This committee needs to know how that happened, and how we can keep it from happening in the future.”

Rep. Issa pointed to recent polls showing the former Secretary of State trouncing every potential G.O.P. Presidential candidate,“even a skinnier version of Chris Christie.”

“We demand an answer to one simple question,” he said.“What does Secretary Clinton know that none of us knows?”

In his boldest allegation of the day, Rep. Issa accused Secretary Clinton of “cynically using her post as Secretary of State to become wildly popular with the American people.”

“I invite her to these hearings to answer those charges,” he said.

Wrapping up for the day, Rep. Issa warned the former Secretary of State that he was just getting started:“Once we Republicans decide to investigate someone, we don’t stop. If Secretary Clinton doesn’t believe me, she should ask her husband.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowit...
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118899 May 10, 2013
joe wrote:
Republican lawmakers asked increasingly tough questions today ...
They may not be doing it for altruistic reasons... but we Americans should be glad they are doing it.

The administration ordered a stand-down as Americans were being killed, then they repeatedly lied about what happened there... as did Sec. Clinton. Tough questions should be asked.

I don't expect you to agree, as the people involved aren't "right wingers." I'm sure by your standards the only problem here is the tough, err, right wing questions.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118900 May 10, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
They may not be doing it for altruistic reasons... but we Americans should be glad they are doing it.
The administration ordered a stand-down as Americans were being killed, then they repeatedly lied about what happened there... as did Sec. Clinton. Tough questions should be asked.
I don't expect you to agree, as the people involved aren't "right wingers." I'm sure by your standards the only problem here is the tough, err, right wing questions.
And I'm sure by your "non-partisan objective" standards you're fine with the fact that non of this was done over 9/11 or the US consulate in Pakistan bombing-ten people killed.

or

In 2004, the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked, two people killed.

or

In 2008, the US embassy in Yemen was bombed, and another ten people killed.

Over 60 embassy attacks under Bush.

And what were the LIES? I guess you already know what was a lie so go ahead and tell us and prove it.'Cause we all know you have inside information, right. Azshole!

Yeah a true unaligned jerk who trumpets the "middle-road", "both parties are guilty" bs and then proceeds to enumerate his particular loathing of the left.

Yo really think anyone believes your crap?
nac

Patchogue, NY

#118902 May 10, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm sure by your "non-partisan objective" standards you're fine with the fact that non of this was done over 9/11 or the US consulate in Pakistan bombing-ten people killed.
or
In 2004, the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked, two people killed.
or
In 2008, the US embassy in Yemen was bombed, and another ten people killed.
Over 60 embassy attacks under Bush.
And what were the LIES? I guess you already know what was a lie so go ahead and tell us and prove it.'Cause we all know you have inside information, right. Azshole!
Yeah a true unaligned jerk who trumpets the "middle-road", "both parties are guilty" bs and then proceeds to enumerate his particular loathing of the left.
Yo really think anyone believes your crap?
Did whistle blowers come forward with testimony that contradicts statements made by the administration in your examples?

It's not THAT the attack happened, it's the fact that a stand-down was ordered while Americans were being killed and the lies that followed.

But don't worry, your heroes will skate again. There are enough people in this country that will accept any lie as long as it comes from "the good" party.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118903 May 10, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Did whistle blowers come forward with testimony that contradicts statements made by the administration in your examples?
It's not THAT the attack happened, it's the fact that a stand-down was ordered while Americans were being killed and the lies that followed.
But don't worry, your heroes will skate again. There are enough people in this country that will accept any lie as long as it comes from "the good" party.
And which party would that be, the "good party" that is? Which party are you referring to? You fcking liar, "mr. objective", "both parties are bad" bs artist.

I notice you screech about lies but only you and glen beck have that inside information, right?

You're just another right wing, tea-party bullshifter, admit it.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Jacques Orleans 189,863
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min lucid 1,236,330
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 52 min IBdaMann 53,593
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 58 min James 51,763
amy 6-2 1 hr Mister Tonka 9
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr PEllen 99,596
abby 6-2 3 hr PEllen 14
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]