Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109512 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.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115052 May 16, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>Whaere is your source ???
The Doctor's report.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115053 May 16, 2012
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
Okboston so you’re in the Pelosi camp that Unemployment Benefits plus Food Stamps equal Jobs and Economic growth…Right? If this Liberal approach was working we should have had a Booming Economy and Obama would be a Shoe- in for a second Term!!
Not me. Not in the camp where unemployment creates jobs nor does food stamps create jobs. It may however keep some people from losing their jobs and it may allow SOME houses to be retained by the owners instead of going back to the bank.

As for the election, you have to admit that if the Republicans don't pull off the tri-fecta: Retain the House, win the Senate and win the Presidency, then by default they (Republicans) are the biggerst losers ever.

With the economy the way it is and the campaigning they are doing (has Obama done anything right?) if Obama gets reelected and/or the Dems retain the Senate (what is it, like 23 Dem seats up compared to about 10 Repub seats) the Republicans would have to be idiots and losers not to win.

“"U.S. Constitution"”

Since: Mar 09

Tea-Party

#115054 May 16, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>Whaere is your source ???
Show us the report....!!
uIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#115055 May 16, 2012
SOLUTIONS PLEASE! LET Stop biting each other and forget we on left or right political spectrum ; this don't solve our decrepit US hell hole , financial/economic catagion. Our leaders most likely are laughing to the bank (I would) while bunch of you morons argue with each and biting each other for the pie !

How about more asking your Mayors to allow for Street Vending and Open Markets ... like what they do in other developing nations...
TSM

United States

#115057 May 16, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me. Not in the camp where unemployment creates jobs nor does food stamps create jobs. It may however keep some people from losing their jobs and it may allow SOME houses to be retained by the owners instead of going back to the bank.
As for the election, you have to admit that if the Republicans don't pull off the tri-fecta: Retain the House, win the Senate and win the Presidency, then by default they (Republicans) are the biggerst losers ever.
With the economy the way it is and the campaigning they are doing (has Obama done anything right?) if Obama gets reelected and/or the Dems retain the Senate (what is it, like 23 Dem seats up compared to about 10 Repub seats) the Republicans would have to be idiots and losers not to win.
I agree it would be a Big Disappointment but 2 out 3 would soften the Pain!!

“"U.S. Constitution"”

Since: Mar 09

Tea-Party

#115058 May 16, 2012
A new Marxist party line spewer amongst us....

The reason health care cost is rising is because all health care is paid for, but only a portion of people receiving health care are paying. Those paying are paying for both themselves and for those not paying. The total cost of healthcare will not decrease.
Additionally, there is no oversight. The answer isn't more incompetent government, that's for sure.

Social Security has become a well-disguised welfare program. Let's fix Social Security right here and now.

IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?

Marxist communism has been a cancer to every economy it was allowed to infect.
Obama's entourage in charge of the economy are Marxist communists.
Only an idiot would expect a positive outcome with Marxist communists in charge of the largest capitalist economy in the world. This is why we are having the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, coincidentally that was the last time we had a government-based economy president.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115059 May 16, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>Whaere is your source ???
When your link works, I will provide my source.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115060 May 16, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
A new Marxist party line spewer amongst us....
The reason health care cost is rising is because all health care is paid for, but only a portion of people receiving health care are paying. Those paying are paying for both themselves and for those not paying. The total cost of healthcare will not decrease.
Additionally, there is no oversight. The answer isn't more incompetent government, that's for sure.
Social Security has become a well-disguised welfare program. Let's fix Social Security right here and now.
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
Marxist communism has been a cancer to every economy it was allowed to infect.
Obama's entourage in charge of the economy are Marxist communists.
Only an idiot would expect a positive outcome with Marxist communists in charge of the largest capitalist economy in the world. This is why we are having the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, coincidentally that was the last time we had a government-based economy president.
STAND BACK PEOPLE! It is not a pretty sight. He has been drinking again and has gone off the deep end.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115061 May 16, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
... nor does food stamps create jobs. It may however keep some people from losing their jobs ...
PLease explain how food stamps keep people from losing their jobs.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
... you have to admit that if the Republicans don't pull off the tri-fecta: Retain the House, win the Senate and win the Presidency, then by default they (Republicans) are the biggerst losers ever.
No - what I have to admit is that's the most absurdly ridiculous piece of defeatist spin I've ever seen.

Given up on BOBO so soon, have we?
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#115062 May 16, 2012
-
-

Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending that started under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt.

Romney criticizing = Of Economic and Foreign Policies = No jobs = contributing to the run-up of the debt = Obama = Bush Clone

-
-

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115064 May 17, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
PLease explain how food stamps keep people from losing their jobs.
<quoted text>
No - what I have to admit is that's the most absurdly ridiculous piece of defeatist spin I've ever seen.
Given up on BOBO so soon, have we?
Without Food Stamps less food is purchased. That effects jobs throughout the food supply chain from the local grocer all the way back to the farmer.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115065 May 17, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
PLease explain how food stamps keep people from losing their jobs.
<quoted text>
No - what I have to admit is that's the most absurdly ridiculous piece of defeatist spin I've ever seen.
Given up on BOBO so soon, have we?
Reality is what it is. And reality paints the Republicans as idiots if they can not gain control in an election in these circumstances.

I mean honestly, the "real" unemployment rate is over 15%. The rate of people participating in the workforce is continually dropping. The debt is ever increasing. We are not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with new workers.

How incompetent do the Republicsns have to be in order to fail to win the Senate, maintain the House and take the Presidency?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115066 May 17, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Without Food Stamps less food is purchased. That effects jobs throughout the food supply chain from the local grocer all the way back to the farmer.
Well, that's a theory, I suppose.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115067 May 17, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality is what it is.
Well, let's just say it's clear you exist in a somewhat different reality than most.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
And reality paints the Republicans as idiots if they can not gain control in an election in these circumstances.
No, reality doesn't - defeatist spin doctor partisan hacks do.

Or try to ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean honestly, the "real" unemployment rate is over 15%. The rate of people participating in the workforce is continually dropping. The debt is ever increasing. We are not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with new workers.

How incompetent do the Republicsns have to be in order to fail to win the Senate, maintain the House and take the Presidency?
"Competency" isn't an issue - it's a simple matter of how many other Useful Idiots like you the Nation is burdened with who will be voting for another 4 years of Epic OBOBO Failure against all better sense and judgement.

According to your favorite progressive echo chamber,...

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romn...

... OBOBO wins in a romp.

So why are you pouting?
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115068 May 17, 2012
Neither the rich nor businesses create jobs.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

"It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

..."
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115069 May 17, 2012
"...Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You."

-Nick Hanauer
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115070 May 17, 2012
Part l

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115071 May 17, 2012
Part ll

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.-Nick Hanauer
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115072 May 17, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality is what it is. And reality paints the Republicans as idiots if they can not gain control in an election in these circumstances.
I mean honestly, the "real" unemployment rate is over 15%. The rate of people participating in the workforce is continually dropping. The debt is ever increasing. We are not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with new workers.
How incompetent do the Republicsns have to be in order to fail to win the Senate, maintain the House and take the Presidency?
It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115074 May 17, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's just say it's clear you exist in a somewhat different reality than most.
<quoted text>
No, reality doesn't - defeatist spin doctor partisan hacks do.
Or try to ...
<quoted text>
"Competency" isn't an issue - it's a simple matter of how many other Useful Idiots like you the Nation is burdened with who will be voting for another 4 years of Epic OBOBO Failure against all better sense and judgement.
According to your favorite progressive echo chamber,...
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romn...
... OBOBO wins in a romp.
So why are you pouting?
LMAO

You mean to tell me with all you have said about Obama and the Democrats in Congress you admit that a majority of people may well find them preferrable to the Republicans?

ROFLMAO

Democrats may be preferable to Republicans, you heard it from Teddy folks.

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.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News York County a Officer of the Yeara accused of a... Jul 20 Justwondering 1
News Crews respond to early morning fire (Oct '10) Jul 19 Jackie 43
News If your neighbor's house is falling apart, don'... (Mar '11) Jul 17 Theguyirepliedtoi... 52
News Lost Civil War gold in Pennsylvania woods? (Mar '08) Jul 7 General Longstreet 32
News Hanover house featured on Animal Planet's 'Haun... (Oct '10) Jul 6 Gerrard 93
Unidentified Noise in East York Jul 4 JeepGuy 3
ROBERT R HOWARD scumbag convicted crack dealer ... Jun '16 Juan the landscaper 1

York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

York Mortgages