Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109504 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

#118764 Apr 23, 2013
Does it surprise you that the U.S. is both the third least taxed developed country and the fourth highest in wealth inequality among all nations? With so little revenue going to the general public, it's not surprising either that our country is the fourth worst in the overall well-being of its children.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118765 Apr 23, 2013
Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.

Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. 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.
Proud to be a britisher

Ashburn, VA

#118766 Apr 24, 2013
Ha..ha,.ha,.ha,.ha,.hæ,.hæ.... OMG! 9.4%!!! That's great!! Ha ha ha!! All the bleady americans think that america is a super power!! Ha!! Soon u r gonna realise the truth when u will be begging from britain and other wealthier countries like china, russia, etc.... Beggers!! Ohhh! Don't cry baby!! LOL!! Come to europe am sure our country will give u some compensation!! Other wise send ur chicks to our country,,we would try to employ them at the job of getting fucked by our dicks!! Ha.ha.ha.....
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118767 Apr 24, 2013
Another conservative shibboleth debunked:

It's been a very bad week for the austerity movement.

Austerity has been discredited as a path to economic prosperity for awhile. But a real breakthrough came last week, when a paper written by a graduate student (UMass Amherst's Thomas Herndon) debunked the famous Reinhart & Rogoff study, which had claimed that growth slows precipitously when a country's debt rises above 90% of GDP.

Since then, more dominos have tumbled...

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-colber...

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-colber...
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118768 Apr 24, 2013
Great work joe! Stick it to "righty"

“You have a right to....”

Since: Dec 07

protect yourself from Liberals

#118769 Apr 25, 2013
joe wrote:
Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.
Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022741...

'Cut & Paste'
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#118770 Apr 25, 2013
Guinness Drinker wrote:
That's a charitable term for joe's spew.

A more precise term would be "plagiarism."

“You have a right to....”

Since: Dec 07

protect yourself from Liberals

#118771 Apr 25, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a charitable term for joe's spew.
A more precise term would be "plagiarism."
well, here's another way to interpret it. People Magazine just named Gwyneth Paltrow "The World's Most Beautiful Woman". Today, the 'Media Bullshit Meter' is at an all time high.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118772 Apr 25, 2013
Typical right-wing responses. Can't refute the facts so attack the bearer. That's why you thugs are dying off and rapidly becoming irrelevant. You're too stupid to present cogent ideas, arguments, discussion, facts, etc.

I notice you fools don't post ANYTHING except attacks on me. I guess I should feel complimented. And you should be grateful; without my posts you'd have NOTHING TO SAY!

“You have a right to....”

Since: Dec 07

protect yourself from Liberals

#118773 Apr 25, 2013
joe wrote:
Typical right-wing responses. Can't refute the facts so attack the bearer. That's why you thugs are dying off and rapidly becoming irrelevant. You're too stupid to present cogent ideas, arguments, discussion, facts, etc.
I notice you fools don't post ANYTHING except attacks on me. I guess I should feel complimented. And you should be grateful; without my posts you'd have NOTHING TO SAY!
what's to refute from collecting facts from media bias ? and where's the daily 'Racism' rant ? Liberals get a fee everytime that word is used for marketing their causes
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118774 Apr 25, 2013
Like I said, you're so stupid that if anything is posted that doesn't come from your right-wing fringe sources you call it media bias.

I guess that works for the dumb and lazy; you never have to read anything, just listen to fox, they'll tell you what to think.

The daily racism rant will come shortly after you make one of your low-life racist statements. Duh!
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118775 Apr 25, 2013
Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.

Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. 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.

-Paul Buchheit

So, what would you refute? Anything? I didn't think so.

“You have a right to....”

Since: Dec 07

protect yourself from Liberals

#118776 Apr 25, 2013
joe wrote:
Like I said, you're so stupid that if anything is posted that doesn't come from your right-wing fringe sources you call it media bias.
I guess that works for the dumb and lazy; you never have to read anything, just listen to fox, they'll tell you what to think.
The daily racism rant will come shortly after you make one of your low-life racist statements. Duh!
atta boy, you made your quota for today. Now here's a tough one; point to the post where I stated I "listen to Fox".

“You have a right to....”

Since: Dec 07

protect yourself from Liberals

#118777 Apr 25, 2013
joe wrote:
Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.
Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. 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.
-Paul Buchheit
So, what would you refute? Anything? I didn't think so.
So you go back, Cut & Paste the same post only this time, you quote the source....backpedaling or stupidity??
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118778 Apr 25, 2013
joe wrote:
Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.
Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. 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.
-Paul Buchheit
So, what would you refute? Anything? I didn't think so.
Nothing here needs to be "refuted" because it is nonsensical mindless drivel.

Using "the typical two-earner couple" as the example to make broad statements about entitlements is not adding anything of value to a discussion on entitlements. It's nonsense.
benselys reality

Nashua, NH

#118779 Apr 26, 2013
just another lying black man who's promises or word mean nothing.

ask the too many black woman struggling to get by on welfare what value a black mans word has??
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118782 Apr 27, 2013
Guinness Drinker wrote:
<quoted text>
So you go back, Cut & Paste the same post only this time, you quote the source....backpedaling or stupidity??
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.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118783 Apr 27, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing here needs to be "refuted" because it is nonsensical mindless drivel.
Using "the typical two-earner couple" as the example to make broad statements about entitlements is not adding anything of value to a discussion on entitlements. It's nonsense.
You're dull one, aren't you? What makes it drivel? Probably that you can't understand anything beyond a fourth grade level (am I being too generous here).
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118784 Apr 27, 2013
Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

Lower cognitive abilities predict greater prejudice through ring-wing ideology.

What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it as follows,“ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”
Just Saying

Central Islip, NY

#118786 Apr 27, 2013
joe wrote:
Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
Lower cognitive abilities predict greater prejudice through ring-wing ideology.
What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it as follows,“ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”
Like the leftist ideologies espoused by most college professors on U.S. campuses for years?

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 Former cop gets 5-10 years for shooting romantica Nov 30 YorkCityPricksand... 1
News Drug task force makes 8 drug arrests in York (May '09) Nov 23 StarOfSagittarius1 15
News Plymouth railroad locomotives honored on calend... Nov 19 William Mark 1
Review: Pasch Enterprises (Sep '10) Nov 16 Secret tenant 21
Trooper fatally shot driver who was dragging hi... Nov 15 openmind693 1
News AG: York man shared child pornography online (May '14) Nov '16 NOT TRUMP 30
News Ex-security guard charged in thefts at Hanover ... (May '11) Oct '16 Private 6

York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

York Mortgages