Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109500 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: May 10

Location hidden

#115473 Jun 6, 2012

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#115474 Jun 6, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. High school textbook stuff. No argument.
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
From the 80's forward, the US has accumulated more and more debt largely in government and in the lower 80% of its citizens simply due to irresponsibility - a permanent professional political class pandering to an irresponsible public promising them free shit and free money they'd never really have to pay back, from the Magic Money Tree.
As for the economy "needing to pay the bottom 50% more" (the same bottom 50% that's already getting a free ride on fed income tax. OKB?), then natural economic and market forces will bring that about.
Without any need for the stupid, dead hand of Government to get handy making things worse.
You are simply delusional and the best kind of cult-fodder having drunk the Kool-Aid.

You've disregarded all of the charts detailing the spending by the republicans and the gutting and cutting of services to the bottom in areas of food stamps, medicaid, education? What is wrong with you that you can blatantly lie and disregard the trillions of dollars spent by George W. Bush, while blaming the debt on the poor? DO SOME RESEARCH AND VERIFY YOUR "TRUTHS" WITH SOME "FACTS".

My GOD! But it is faux intellectuals that vote our country deeper and deeper into the crapper every election.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: The Poor Pay The Highest Marginal Rates In The Country
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poor-pay-the-h...

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thi...

The poor pay plenty in taxes, don’t believe anybody who says they don’t

http://ethicsbob.com/2011/09/01/the-poor-pay-...

If you need more information to gain a little bit of knowledge, I suggest you use google.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115475 Jun 6, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Interesting data. Of course, the discussion was re: WEALTH distribution, not income, but whatev - interesting data nonetheless.
Yes, one wants a longer longitudinal slice of data, extending back thru the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries to see the full cycle at work, but I haven't found a good dataset like that yet.
Still - what I see in this data, is:
1) Little or no significant change in share of aggregate income going to the top 5% from 1967-1984. From 1985-1992, small but steady increase in share of aggregate income going to the top 5%, culminating in a significant jump (2% in one year) from 1992-93 in the share of aggregate income going to the top 5%. Since 1994, there has been no significant long-term change or trend in the share of aggregate income going to the top 5%- it varies within a narrow range of 21.2-21.3%.
2) Same pattern is seen in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile. Since 1994, there has been no significant long-term change or trend in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile either.
3) Bottom quintile - marginal steady decrease in share of aggregate income from 4% to 3.3% over 43 years. Glaciers have been changing faster over the same timeframe.
4) Second, 3rd, 4th quintiles - same pattern of slow steady erosion in share of aggregate income as bottom quintile - a couple percent.
Frankly, there is no significant signal perceptible in these data that supports your Reagan/Bush OCD.
What is strikingly apparent, however, is the major leap in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile in just one year - from 1992-1993. What could have caused that, eh?
Yep - Clinton's Bubba's Tax Bill! That's right. Wondering how an INCREASE in tax rates results in a DECREASE in tax revenues AND an INCREASE in the share of income going to the top earners??
I commend this gem of a paper by the chief economist for Obobo's very own Economic Recovery Advisory Board to your careful study:
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedp...
Very intersting - thanks for posting the data.
First, wealth distribution is related to income distribution with a multiplier effect.

Second, what you call marginal is actually significant. What you call a marginal steady increase over 43 years is actually a 17 - 18% income reduction on average for that 20% group of people. You forgot that 20% of homes share 4% of the income and 43 years later that same 20% of homes is sharing 3.3%. Try hat for your other "marginal" differences.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115476 Jun 6, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Interesting data. Of course, the discussion was re: WEALTH distribution, not income, but whatev - interesting data nonetheless.
Yes, one wants a longer longitudinal slice of data, extending back thru the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries to see the full cycle at work, but I haven't found a good dataset like that yet.
Still - what I see in this data, is:
1) Little or no significant change in share of aggregate income going to the top 5% from 1967-1984. From 1985-1992, small but steady increase in share of aggregate income going to the top 5%, culminating in a significant jump (2% in one year) from 1992-93 in the share of aggregate income going to the top 5%. Since 1994, there has been no significant long-term change or trend in the share of aggregate income going to the top 5%- it varies within a narrow range of 21.2-21.3%.
2) Same pattern is seen in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile. Since 1994, there has been no significant long-term change or trend in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile either.
3) Bottom quintile - marginal steady decrease in share of aggregate income from 4% to 3.3% over 43 years. Glaciers have been changing faster over the same timeframe.
4) Second, 3rd, 4th quintiles - same pattern of slow steady erosion in share of aggregate income as bottom quintile - a couple percent.
Frankly, there is no significant signal perceptible in these data that supports your Reagan/Bush OCD.
What is strikingly apparent, however, is the major leap in the share of aggregate income going to the top quintile in just one year - from 1992-1993. What could have caused that, eh?
Yep - Clinton's Bubba's Tax Bill! That's right. Wondering how an INCREASE in tax rates results in a DECREASE in tax revenues AND an INCREASE in the share of income going to the top earners??
I commend this gem of a paper by the chief economist for Obobo's very own Economic Recovery Advisory Board to your careful study:
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedp...
Very intersting - thanks for posting the data.
It works out to about a 14% increase for the top 20% and a full 20% increase fo the top 5%. Do you really think that 14 and 20% increases are marginal?

I think that 2% increase is an anomoly based on something we have not accounted for. Unless of course you want to argue that higher taxes on the rich result in more earnings for the rich? Is that really what you want to do?

Other than that anomoly, what I stated stands true.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115477 Jun 6, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You have proved nothing of the sort.
Blue-collar and white-collar labor wage rates have increased tremendously. over the past 70 years.
Your class warrior gene is just offended because labor compensation hasn't increased as much as executive comp.
That's just tough darts. The US isn't Communist China. Sorry (not).
<quoted text>
Yep - that's right. I support the free-enterprise system and the immense wealth-creating societal benefits corporatization provides to ALL participants in the economy, with all its ills, as history teaches us incontrovertably that the alternatives are far worse.
Proudly.
They have? You have proof of these huge increases?

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Ben...

Perhaps this is what you were thinking of, but it includes executive and top 5% income.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/up...

But what you should consider:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/11/05/20...

http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007...

“"U.S. Constitution"”

Since: Mar 09

Tea-Party

#115478 Jun 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, what events or what tools were used to stop the concentration of wealth at the top?
What is the percentage of households that pay capital gains taxes?
What is the percentage of households that pay SS and Medicare taxes at the maximum rate of $15.3% on all income?
I can see November from Wisconsin
Politics as usual

Melville, NY

#115479 Jun 6, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>I can see November from Wisconsin

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115480 Jun 6, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>I can see November from Wisconsin
I have already stated I would be supporting Republicans this fall. And like magic in December all of our problems will go away.
Independent Thinker

San Luis Obispo, CA

#115481 Jun 6, 2012
WowTheBoogieDown wrote:
<quoted text>You are simply delusional and the best kind of cult-fodder having drunk the Kool-Aid.
You've disregarded all of the charts detailing the spending by the republicans and the gutting and cutting of services to the bottom in areas of food stamps, medicaid, education? What is wrong with you that you can blatantly lie and disregard the trillions of dollars spent by George W. Bush, while blaming the debt on the poor? DO SOME RESEARCH AND VERIFY YOUR "TRUTHS" WITH SOME "FACTS".
My GOD! But it is faux intellectuals that vote our country deeper and deeper into the crapper every election.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: The Poor Pay The Highest Marginal Rates In The Country
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poor-pay-the-h...
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thi...
The poor pay plenty in taxes, don’t believe anybody who says they don’t
http://ethicsbob.com/2011/09/01/the-poor-pay-...
If you need more information to gain a little bit of knowledge, I suggest you use google.
Let's looking at spending by DEMOCRATS, shall we...

Feinstein has personal knowledge of those expenditures, not only as former chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (2001-2005), but also as the spouse of one of the biggest war profiteers in the business. Reporting in one of our excellent local northern California papers, The Bohemian (yes, as in Bohemian Grove), Peter Byrne notes:

"Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

"Each year, MILCON’s members decide which military construction projects will be funded from a roster proposed by the Department of Defense. Contracts to build these specific projects are subsequently awarded to such major defense contractors as Halliburton, Fluor, Parsons, Louis Berger, URS Corporation, and Perini Corporation. From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein’s knowledge, Blum was a majority owner of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp."

Blum and Feinstein are laughing all the way to the bank as URS Corp and Perini grow fat on the military appropriations gravy train – the only sector of the U.S. economy that seems to be thriving. Perini, in which Blum owns a controlling interest, is the Democrats’ Halliburton – indeed, Cheney’s old corporate digs is Perini’s chief competitor. Blum bought it when it was nearly broke in 1997. In 2005, Feinstein’s membership on the subcommittee was "routinely" rotated, as the Soros-funded shills over at Media Matters made sure to point out, contrary to Byrne’s assertions that she might have resigned under pressure. By that time Perini was raking in $1.7 billion in annual income.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/11...
Independent Thinker

San Luis Obispo, CA

#115482 Jun 6, 2012
WowTheBoogieDown wrote:
<quoted text>You are simply delusional and the best kind of cult-fodder having drunk the Kool-Aid.
You've disregarded all of the charts detailing the spending by the republicans and the gutting and cutting of services to the bottom in areas of food stamps, medicaid, education? What is wrong with you that you can blatantly lie and disregard the trillions of dollars spent by George W. Bush, while blaming the debt on the poor? DO SOME RESEARCH AND VERIFY YOUR "TRUTHS" WITH SOME "FACTS".
My GOD! But it is faux intellectuals that vote our country deeper and deeper into the crapper every election.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: The Poor Pay The Highest Marginal Rates In The Country
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poor-pay-the-h...
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thi...
The poor pay plenty in taxes, don’t believe anybody who says they don’t
http://ethicsbob.com/2011/09/01/the-poor-pay-...
If you need more information to gain a little bit of knowledge, I suggest you use google.
The top WEALTHIEST Senators are DEMOCRATS!!!

Democrats are making money hand over fist.

Top 10 Wealthiest Senators

UNITED STATES OF INFLUENCE
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-250_162-10008411....

---

You make me laugh you simpleton.

.
Independent Thinker

San Luis Obispo, CA

#115483 Jun 7, 2012
WowTheBoogieDown wrote:
<quoted text>You are simply delusional and the best kind of cult-fodder having drunk the Kool-Aid.
You've disregarded all of the charts detailing the spending by the republicans and the gutting and cutting of services to the bottom in areas of food stamps, medicaid, education? What is wrong with you that you can blatantly lie and disregard the trillions of dollars spent by George W. Bush, while blaming the debt on the poor? DO SOME RESEARCH AND VERIFY YOUR "TRUTHS" WITH SOME "FACTS".
My GOD! But it is faux intellectuals that vote our country deeper and deeper into the crapper every election.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: The Poor Pay The Highest Marginal Rates In The Country
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poor-pay-the-h...
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thi...
The poor pay plenty in taxes, don’t believe anybody who says they don’t
http://ethicsbob.com/2011/09/01/the-poor-pay-...
If you need more information to gain a little bit of knowledge, I suggest you use google.
Your Democrats are just as irresponsible in screwing the US Middle Class!

Democratic Blood Money and Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering

"...And it is not just the Feinstein family that has benefited from the war — so too has the Democratic Party. Since 2000, the Democrats' Daddy Warbucks has donated over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Committee including leading Democrats including John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and even Barbara Boxer.

Feinstein's resignation from MILCON was the least the senator could do to atone for profiting off the spoils of war. But Feinstein wasn't trying to atone, she seems to have been trying to cover her tracks instead by distancing herself from her post. If the Democratic Party had any foresight whatsoever it would return all the Blood Money donated by Blum. From there the Senate ought to hold hearings and examine Feinstein's tenure as the chair and ranking member of MILCON and analyze every single contract she approved which benefited her husband's respective companies.

There is absolutely no question — Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a plethora of ethics violations she needs to account for at once."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank36.html

Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156751...

Democrat Senators have been George W Bushes BEST FRIEND!!!
Independent Thinker

San Luis Obispo, CA

#115484 Jun 7, 2012
Independent Thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's looking at spending by DEMOCRATS, shall we...
sb: Let's START BY looking at spending by DEMOCRATS, shall we...

---

Everyone have a nice day.
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#115485 Jun 7, 2012
Dee Lay wrote:
<quoted text>I can see November from Wisconsin
The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on a freight train.

“Impeach Obama!”

Since: Jul 08

Memphis, TN

#115486 Jun 7, 2012
Molah wrote:
What a joke. The unemployment rate is now at 9.4% way above the governments "predicted" forcast. We have the heighest rate in the past 25 years of unemployed workers. What happened to those 5 million jobs? Can't blame the old school anymore. This is heppening on The Big "O's" watch.
I have two words to describe the Troll-in-Chief.

"Incompetent Liar."
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115488 Jun 7, 2012
What a great example of American style democracy on display in Wisconsin. He who has the most money wins. It's not enough to re-define "the right to bear arms", let's go ahead and re-define speech.

Speech is no longer the vocalized form of human communication, it's now money, actually.

Sly Fox

Stuart, FL

#115489 Jun 8, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on a freight train.
The light Democrats see at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on a Republican freight train.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#115490 Jun 8, 2012
Sly Fox wrote:
<quoted text>The light Democrats see at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on a Republican freight train.
woo woooooo!!!
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115491 Jun 8, 2012
Denmark becomes the eighth European country and the 11th worldwide to pass a marriage equality law. Countries with nationwide marriage equality laws are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#115492 Jun 8, 2012
joe wrote:
Denmark becomes the eighth European country and the 11th worldwide to pass a marriage equality law. Countries with nationwide marriage equality laws are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.
So what? They aren't the USA.

As your Mom used to say,'If your friend jumped off a bridge, does that make is sensible for you to jump off also?"
joe

Corte Madera, CA

#115493 Jun 8, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? They aren't the USA.
As your Mom used to say,'If your friend jumped off a bridge, does that make is sensible for you to jump off also?"
So, that's your opinion of same sex marriage?

How about a woman's right to choose?

How about regulating gun ownership?

How about equal pay for women?

No need to answer, all rhetorical. We know who you are.

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) 5 min Guest 1,484,331
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Jacques in Orleans 234,708
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 11 min President Donald ... 4,005
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 17 min Cath League of Du... 251
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 18 min Uncle Tab 256,955
News Ralph Nader Slams Keith Ellison For 'Toning Dow... 7 hr Marie-Luise_J 6
News Obama approval hits 60% at end of term 18 hr Aponi 37
More from around the web