Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109538 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

#115347 Jun 1, 2012
Bill_S wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you are still using the same old lie you used a few years ago.
Let's refresh your dense memory.
The last 2 years Bush was president, the budget rose sharply. Who was in control of the house????? Yes you got that right, the demolosers.
And you cried for nearly 3 years it was Bush's fault.
Yet you also just the past 2 budget increases were crying that the repubs wanted the Gov to shut down to say "look they don't cooperate.
Yet you easily on purpose mind you, forget to mention that the Senate rejected every cut the repubs put out there. But again you want to just blame everyone buy the dems.
As I mentioned several times. You are a typical liar. Bent on "trying" to make Oloser look good.
Sorry, but that hope and change has only hurt the people. Only a "sane" person gets it. Unlike people like yourself.
As I told you last year, Oloser will lose this election. Why? Cause he can't win on his record. He hasn't done nothing but raised the debt and deficit even more.
And if you want I can get you the same facts to show that the dems passed the crazy budgets under Bush. So quit lying! You are only fooling yourself!
I have no problem holding Obama accountable when I am discussing things with individuals that hold bush accountable.

BTW: Obama's current spending is below bush's last year (2009). And if you want to stick with the claim that there is no budget, you really have to look at who is approving the spending.

The Senate agreed to over $2 Tril in budget cuts in order to increase the debt ceiling. The House, in their very next political budget inserted $2 Tril in tax cuts. What does that do to the overall debt? It means cutting spending is useless and it is the House making it so.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115348 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would support a party that thinks the job of the Senate and House is to ensue the President is a one term President when he is not of their party?
What delusional burble are you spewing now, OKB?

Last time I checked, the US Senate is controlled by the Incompetent-in-Chief's OWN PARTY.

Same bunch of stalwarts that REJECTED OBOBO'S BUDGET UNANIMOUSLY.

Lead a nation? This incompetent can't even lead HIS OWN PARTY.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> The job of the Senate and House is to fund the government, provide oversight thereof and to provide new legistlation as needed. This is true regardless of who is President.
The role of the minority party in either is to help ensure that the other party does not go to far left or right and to try and incorporate their values into legistlation as they are able to do so.
Maybe on Planet OKB, but here in the real world, that's utter bullshyte.

The role of the minority party is to do whatever it takes to convince the People to throw the bums of the other party out in the next election.

Pure and simple.

If you believe otherwise, it's time to stop posting as OKB and start posting as "Pollyanna."
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115349 Jun 1, 2012
joe wrote:
More of the same stupid hacking at Obama by far-right fools who can't name a single accomplishment of the Republicans. Happens every time.
In case you haven't noticed you've repeated your attacks on Obama ad-nauseum. Here's your chance to proclaim Republican successes and you can't.
Same old drivel. Hilarious.
Now make some more ignorant attacks on Obama.
joe -

you need to get used to the FACT that when you're IN power, it's all about what YOU have and haven't done with that power.

No one give a rat's azz about anything else. You either have a case, or you don't - and if you don't, you deserve to be thrown out of office.

Want proof? Tell us all about the many accomplishments of Obobo that won him the election in 2008.

Oh! Oh! I hear you say ... but it's only PROGRESSIVES and DEMS that deserve election on nothing more than a smooth spiel!

Bend over, joe - now it's your turn. And remember as you're being drilled - you have only one Incompetent-in-Chief to blame for it.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115350 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Stimulus stopped the slide though was not large enough to give growth a pop.
i.e., EPIC Failure.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Healthcare Bill started off covering kids to age 26 on parents policy and forced insurance to take pre-existing conditions.
With Obobo MAGIC MONEY from the Magic Money Tree. In the middle of an economic recession caused by an over-leveraged financial system and a federal deficit growing faster than anyone could count - Obobo pours GASOLINE on the fire that's burning down the nation.

We needed an out-of-control federal government slashed back under control and an economic turn-around. Obobo gave us an OBAMASCARE travesty that most Americans didn't want, and still want repealed.

EPIC STUPIDITY AND FAILURE
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Wound Down Iraq.
Credit - BUSH. Obobo merely obediently follows thru as required by the Status of Forces agreement negotiated and put in place by the Bush Administration.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Surge in Afghanistan.
EPIC FAILURE. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/obama...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes.
Great. A nation in which only half the households pay FIT that's going broke faster than anyone can count, and tax CUTS for the pnes that aren't paying any in the first place is your idea of smart, prudent success?

EPIC FAILURE once again.

So you're 0-for-5 there, OKB - in fact the Romney campaign could not have produced a more convincing case for dumping the Incompetent Amateur Obobo than that.

You wanna go for double-or-nothing? Please?
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115351 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
it is the best that can be accomplished when Republicans are involved. Kind of like the debt.
Translation - THE POTUS IS COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT AS A LEADER - INCAPABLE OF LEADING THE NEATION WHEN HIS OWN PARTY CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

Just thought we should make clear what you're actually saying there, OKB.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115352 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
If the President requests $X in his budget and the House and the Senate pass a budget (or spending) that equal $X plus $Y, who owns it? The House passed more spending than was requested by the President.
Was it Reagan or those free-spending Democrats in Congress?
Silly, stupid question,OKB.

You know perfectly well it is the PRESIDENT and ONLY the President who is responsible for actually spending the money.

1) He has veto power over the budget - THE FINAL ABSOLUTE POWER

2) All federal mspending is done OVER HIS SIGNATURE - not Congress's. Congress merely AUTHORIZES. The POTUS SPENDS, and is 100% accountable for it.

Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115353 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
There may be a crack in the armor of the SCOTUS decision. I heard there will be a case concerning foreign corporations. The court has already ruled that foreigners in the US can not contribute. This differentiation over who can and who can not can force a reconsideration of the corporate right to free speech.
O rly?

Start warming up to file you Amicus brief, OKB.

First question for you - and until you can answer it in a way that is compelling and constitutionally correct - you have no case.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE A "FOREIGN" CORPORATION? What simple, unambiguous, and ascertainable test do you propose as a means of separating Eeeevul "foreign" corporations from "Merkin" corpos?

Good luck. Don't strain a neuron - "Oh. Yeah. You're right - stupid idea - there is no practical way" is a perfectly correct and honorable answer.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115354 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The only possible replacement has no idea how our government works. He thinks on day 1 he can announce budget cuts and something will happen.
I notice you avoided my question.
Boy, are you clue-less.

The "only possible replacement" is a competent and experienced leader that knows how to demand resignations from all appointed positions in the Federal Goverment on Day 1, appoint competent people, and knows how to use the power of the executive, and just say "NO" to spending that requires his assent. On Day 1.

Unlike the incompetent amateur who's in the job at present.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115355 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Another problem with the TEA Party. First they agree with the decision that corporations are people.
Second, they want their government to listen to them instead of the corporations.
Finally, they do not support ammending the Constitution to fix these problems.
More OKB nonsense.

1) Corporate personhood is not a political or TEA Party issue. It is a LEGAL FACT, and has been since the founding of the Republic. I've already schooled you on this.

2) Cite if you can any published statement by any person in a position of authority in the TEA Party that says ANYTHING about amending the Constitution to alter the legal concept of corporate personhood, and the Constitutional rights of corporate persons.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115356 Jun 1, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
O rly?
Start warming up to file you Amicus brief, OKB.
First question for you - and until you can answer it in a way that is compelling and constitutionally correct - you have no case.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A "FOREIGN" CORPORATION? What simple, unambiguous, and ascertainable test do you propose as a means of separating Eeeevul "foreign" corporations from "Merkin" corpos?
Good luck. Don't strain a neuron - "Oh. Yeah. You're right - stupid idea - there is no practical way" is a perfectly correct and honorable answer.
First, it is not my problem to define either foreign or corporation. I would think corporate headquarters and its home office for tax purposes would play some role in the answer.

I really want you to counter with some answer that basically says any corporation worldwide should be able to participate in our political process. Because if you can not define it, then that is what you are saying since you think corporations have a right to participate in our political process.

Second, as you are well aware, I am against corporations or any other non-voting entity (certain exceptions for young people, etc.) participating in our elections. Like the founding fathers, I believe my representatives are elected to represent me and what I tell them I think is important and how it should be accomplished. They are not elected to represent corporate entities whose desires may and often do run counter to what the people want.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115357 Jun 1, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, are you clue-less.
The "only possible replacement" is a competent and experienced leader that knows how to demand resignations from all appointed positions in the Federal Goverment on Day 1, appoint competent people, and knows how to use the power of the executive, and just say "NO" to spending that requires his assent. On Day 1.
Unlike the incompetent amateur who's in the job at present.
Yes, yes, on day one he can announce spending cuts and they will magically happen.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115358 Jun 1, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly, stupid question,OKB.
You know perfectly well it is the PRESIDENT and ONLY the President who is responsible for actually spending the money.
1) He has veto power over the budget - THE FINAL ABSOLUTE POWER
2) All federal mspending is done OVER HIS SIGNATURE - not Congress's. Congress merely AUTHORIZES. The POTUS SPENDS, and is 100% accountable for it.
Nice to see you hold bush accountable for the 2009 budget. I assume that you will no longer hold Obama "accountable" for a budget that bush failed to veto.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115359 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW: Obama's current spending is below bush's last year (2009). And if you want to stick with the claim that there is no budget, you really have to look at who is approving the spending.
... It means cutting spending is useless and it is the House making it so.
Obobo is responsible for 8 of the 12 months of FY2009 federal Spending - he is therefore TWICE as responsible as Bush for 2009 Spending.

Your smokescreen obscuring Obobo's sole 100% responsibility and accountability for every federal dollar spent is UTTER HORSESHYTE.

Obobo has the Power of the Executive to REFUSE to spend federal money. The POTUS SPENDS. The Conregess merely authorizes.

The fact that Obobo has not cut federal spending, as is so obviously necessary, shows he is INCOMPETENT as a leader, and unfit to continue in office.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115360 Jun 1, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
More OKB nonsense.
1) Corporate personhood is not a political or TEA Party issue. It is a LEGAL FACT, and has been since the founding of the Republic. I've already schooled you on this.
2) Cite if you can any published statement by any person in a position of authority in the TEA Party that says ANYTHING about amending the Constitution to alter the legal concept of corporate personhood, and the Constitutional rights of corporate persons.
We both know it is a limited personhood and those limitations are in law. A corporation can not vote. It has other differences as well.

Second, that is exactly my point about the TEA Party. The TEA Party wants politicians to listen to them while simultaneously support full personhood rights for corporations and not supporting changes to the Constitution that would force politicians to listen to them.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#115361 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem holding Obama accountable when I am discussing things with individuals that hold bush accountable.
BTW: Obama's current spending is below bush's last year (2009). And if you want to stick with the claim that there is no budget, you really have to look at who is approving the spending.
The Senate agreed to over $2 Tril in budget cuts in order to increase the debt ceiling. The House, in their very next political budget inserted $2 Tril in tax cuts. What does that do to the overall debt? It means cutting spending is useless and it is the House making it so.
Keep trying to manipulate the truth.
Here you go for your info since you fail to speak the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Stat... (submitted by Obama)

Again another link showing the spending with again the demolosers in control. Speaking of Pelosi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Stat...

Ok it goes like this:
Under Bush's last year with republican controlled congress: 2.66 trillion budget with a deficit of 248 billion.
Under the demoloser controlled congress and senate: 3.1 trillion budget 2008.
In 2009 with demoloser controlled congress yet again it rose to 3.1trillion requested. But under the demoloser controlled house and senate they spent more (3.5 trillion).
In 2010 Pelosi passed for Obama to sign which he did in case you forgot: 3.5 trillion which was requested. And they actually spent 3.7 trillion.
In 2011 3.8 as requested by Obama but congress held the country hostage forcing Oloser to accept a comprimise (which he said he would work with the repubs to lower. but it took him going on TV trying to smear the repubs for really wanting to cut spending)
Actual budget passed by "congress" was 3.3 trillion. Yes that was congress who lowered what Oloser was asking for!
In 2012: Congress had a real fight with the senate which (kept rejecting all cuts. It is there to read if you quit denying real facts) 3.72 trillion was requested. But with senate and Oloser constantly pushing for more spending? they ended up at 3.79 trillion.

I find it funny how you accuse Bush when he was president. Yet you accuse the house when Oloser is president.
If you really look at it that way? Then you are a biased person. And only use whatever you can to push your side. Which makes you a liar as I mentioned how many times since you been on this site?

My point is this. Since the dems have ahd control of the hosue. Spending rose to 700 billion. Once Oloser took office it rose to:
1.13 trillion since dems took the house in 2007 to present day with Oloser as president.
So tell us how do you end up with less spending when the budget tells us otherwise?
Also how do you explain why Oloser asked for more and the hosue cut it down?
And why he went public and tried to use the people to sway his request?
You see Obama is nothing but a liar. And if you fail to see that? Then you are nothing more than a fool.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#115362 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to see you hold bush accountable for the 2009 budget. I assume that you will no longer hold Obama "accountable" for a budget that bush failed to veto.
Now you are contradicting yourself LOL.
Now if you want to use this argument? Then why didn't Obama Veto the budget that Bush left? Now remember it was congress who wrote it!
Since you want to blame congress now.
And mind you that the control was under dems during the last budget that was left. And the amount requested was lower than what was spent. Which is the responsibility of Obama not Bush.
Rememebr Bush left office in Jan. 2009. So who spent for the rest of the year????? Yes you got that right Obama!

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115363 Jun 1, 2012
Bill_S wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep trying to manipulate the truth.
Here you go for your info since you fail to speak the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Stat... (submitted by Obama)
Again another link showing the spending with again the demolosers in control. Speaking of Pelosi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Stat...
Ok it goes like this:
Under Bush's last year with republican controlled congress: 2.66 trillion budget with a deficit of 248 billion.
Under the demoloser controlled congress and senate: 3.1 trillion budget 2008.
In 2009 with demoloser controlled congress yet again it rose to 3.1trillion requested. But under the demoloser controlled house and senate they spent more (3.5 trillion).
In 2010 Pelosi passed for Obama to sign which he did in case you forgot: 3.5 trillion which was requested. And they actually spent 3.7 trillion.
In 2011 3.8 as requested by Obama but congress held the country hostage forcing Oloser to accept a comprimise (which he said he would work with the repubs to lower. but it took him going on TV trying to smear the repubs for really wanting to cut spending)
Actual budget passed by "congress" was 3.3 trillion. Yes that was congress who lowered what Oloser was asking for!
In 2012: Congress had a real fight with the senate which (kept rejecting all cuts. It is there to read if you quit denying real facts) 3.72 trillion was requested. But with senate and Oloser constantly pushing for more spending? they ended up at 3.79 trillion.
I find it funny how you accuse Bush when he was president. Yet you accuse the house when Oloser is president.
If you really look at it that way? Then you are a biased person. And only use whatever you can to push your side. Which makes you a liar as I mentioned how many times since you been on this site?
My point is this. Since the dems have ahd control of the hosue. Spending rose to 700 billion. Once Oloser took office it rose to:
1.13 trillion since dems took the house in 2007 to present day with Oloser as president.
So tell us how do you end up with less spending when the budget tells us otherwise?
Also how do you explain why Oloser asked for more and the hosue cut it down?
And why he went public and tried to use the people to sway his request?
You see Obama is nothing but a liar. And if you fail to see that? Then you are nothing more than a fool.
Bill, you are a loser and you are assisting America to become a loser nation. You are a prime example of why this nation is in gridlock and will fail at the end of year to come to a deal on taxes, spending or the debt ceiling.

You are just like the idiots in Europe, all want and no give. No solutions from you, only blame, blame, blame and only pointed in one direction.

Is it the President or Congress who is at fault Bill? And lets not forget, how much is being spent this year and who controls the House?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115364 Jun 1, 2012
Bill_S wrote:
<quoted text>
...Now if you want to use this argument? Then why didn't Obama Veto the budget that Bush left? Now remember it was congress who wrote it!
Since you want to blame congress now.
And mind you that the control was under dems during the last budget that was left. And the amount requested was lower than what was spent. Which is the responsibility of Obama not Bush.
Rememebr Bush left office in Jan. 2009. So who spent for the rest of the year????? Yes you got that right Obama!
1. Do you really not know why President Obama did not veto a Bill that was already enacted into law?

2. In early January, before President Obama became President, the CBO predicted that the "bush" budget would result in a deficit of over $1 Trillion.

3. The real question is why didn't bush veto the budget.

4. None of this does anything to substantiate whether too much, now enough or an amount just right has been and continues to be spent.

If you want to hold President Obama accountable from day one, fine. Just admit that bush is 100% responsible for the 2001 recession, 9-11, the housing bubble and the financial collapse.

But I am already on record that bush either was not responsible or is only minimally to blame for any of them.

Of course he did sign the first budget to authorize $2 Tril in spending and the first budget authorize $3 Tril in spending and was the first President in history to have a $1 Tril deficit projected for his budget.

“"U.S. Constitution"”

Since: Mar 09

Tea-Party

#115365 Jun 1, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Stimulus stopped the slide though was not large enough to give growth a pop.
Healthcare Bill started off covering kids to age 26 on parents policy and forced insurance to take pre-existing conditions.
Wound Down Iraq.
Surge in Afghanistan.
Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes.
So far the Republican have maintained a tax cut for the rich AND offered to cut taxes by $2 Tril more instead of decreasing the deficit.
what is it with liberals and hair cuts?
Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips. President Obama obviously also does not care much about the massive carbon footprint his haircuts are leaving on our planet which, we are told, is tipping precariously.

The German NDR reporter says:‘The barber never says a word about what they discuss. Perhaps that’s also a reason why Obama feels comfortable being around him. Otherwise he would not fly his barber in from Chicago to Washington every ten to 14 days.’

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115366 Jun 1, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>what is it with liberals and hair cuts?
Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips. President Obama obviously also does not care much about the massive carbon footprint his haircuts are leaving on our planet which, we are told, is tipping precariously.
The German NDR reporter says:‘The barber never says a word about what they discuss. Perhaps that’s also a reason why Obama feels comfortable being around him. Otherwise he would not fly his barber in from Chicago to Washington every ten to 14 days.’
People who enjoy shoddy government don't think the President should have it as good as business leaders.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Dagger Waxman 1,264,597
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Calvin_Coolish 190,446
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 34 min woodtick57 194,709
News Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal 1 hr Broken Culture 133
News Obama's EPA Rules Could Elevate Climate Change ... 1 hr Black Annie 2
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 15 hr Earthling-1 34,407
News Stressful times for low-polling Republicans who... Sun Cat74 29
More from around the web