Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109514 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

#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.

“she may be a murderer, but....”

Since: Dec 07

she'll ensure U cant prove it

#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".

“she may be a murderer, but....”

Since: Dec 07

she'll ensure U cant prove it

#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?
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118788 Apr 27, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>Like the leftist ideologies espoused by most college professors on U.S. campuses for years?
Another right winger who can't read or comprehend. Good one, clod.
Just Saying

Central Islip, NY

#118789 Apr 27, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Another right winger who can't read or comprehend. Good one, clod.
Another smug lefty who can't read or comprehend.

I responded to the last line of your post, genius.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118790 Apr 28, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>Another smug lefty who can't read or comprehend.
I responded to the last line of your post, genius.
So you are as stupid as we thought. 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.
nac

Massapequa, NY

#118791 Apr 28, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
joey joey joe... I've already told you why it is drivel. Using "the typical two-earner couple" as the example to make broad statements about entitlements makes about as much sense as using "the typical anorexic" as your example in a discussion about over-eating at the buffet.

You plagiarized nonsense. You'd be wise to back away from it, but for comedy's sake... by all means continue.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118792 Apr 28, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
joey joey joe... I've already told you why it is drivel. Using "the typical two-earner couple" as the example to make broad statements about entitlements makes about as much sense as using "the typical anorexic" as your example in a discussion about over-eating at the buffet.
You plagiarized nonsense. You'd be wise to back away from it, but for comedy's sake... by all means continue.
Okay, you're example is....? Nothing.

You're one of those right wing twits we've all become so familiar with and who I have been describing on this thread, who thinks that all that's required to refute an argument is to merely say "Oh, that's drivel"

So, since you nor any of the rest of you right wing twits have enough education or imagination to understand that you are the butt's of my criticism and that I have no interest in what you "think" since so little of what you share in this forum has even the remotest hint of thinking behind it, I invite you to not bother responding. I'll make posts to inform those who want or need insights, information and scientifically documented proofs other than the your monolithic cultish views on the American condition.

I'll be happy to debate an issue with anyone who brings an attempt at rational, informed discussion. The rest can fck yourselves.
Just Saying

Central Islip, NY

#118794 Apr 28, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're example is....? Nothing.
You're one of those right wing twits we've all become so familiar with and who I have been describing on this thread, who thinks that all that's required to refute an argument is to merely say "Oh, that's drivel"
So, since you nor any of the rest of you right wing twits have enough education or imagination to understand that you are the butt's of my criticism and that I have no interest in what you "think" since so little of what you share in this forum has even the remotest hint of thinking behind it, I invite you to not bother responding. I'll make posts to inform those who want or need insights, information and scientifically documented proofs other than the your monolithic cultish views on the American condition.
I'll be happy to debate an issue with anyone who brings an attempt at rational, informed discussion. The rest can fck yourselves.
So much arrogance and condescension in a single post. You've really outdone yourself this time. Typical smug elitist, thinking you're so much better than everyone else.

You're a legend in your own mind!

By the way, if you don't want to deal with those whom you consider to be your intellectual inferiors, stay off Topix, and stick to Mensa!
nac

New Brunswick, NJ

#118795 Apr 28, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're example is....? Nothing.
You're one of those right wing twits we've all become so familiar with and who I have been describing on this thread, who thinks that all that's required to refute an argument is to merely say "Oh, that's drivel"
So, since you nor any of the rest of you right wing twits have enough education or imagination to understand that you are the butt's of my criticism and that I have no interest in what you "think" since so little of what you share in this forum has even the remotest hint of thinking behind it, I invite you to not bother responding. I'll make posts to inform those who want or need insights, information and scientifically documented proofs other than the your monolithic cultish views on the American condition.
I'll be happy to debate an issue with anyone who brings an attempt at rational, informed discussion. The rest can fck yourselves.
joe, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why the example and the statement you posted are flawed?

I'll explain:

Your quote: "Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing."

Right off the bat, it's nonsense. And here's why... It says, "accused by the uninformed" yet does not identify who these "uninformed accusers" are, nor when/where the "uninformed accusation" was made. It's a manufactured boogeyman. DRIVEL.

Next, the author tries to prove his winning argument by pointing out that, "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in."

Multiple problems here, as well. Specifically: The SS system is DESIGNED so that some people will pay more in than they'll receive in benefit. It has to be that way. Over the course of their respective careers, a doctor is going to pay more into SS than the person that answers the phone at his office. When they both pass away, the doctor will likely have received less than he paid in while his receptionist might get more than they paid in. So joe, this simple fact of life does not prove wrong the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman. Additional DRIVEL.

Next problem, the example of "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes." Problems here too, joe... have you figured them out? If not, I'll share. "Average wages" isn't defined. We can only surmise that it is in the middle, right in the fat part of the bell curve. If you take the low end of what *could* be considered average, his statement might be true. If we take the high end, it might & it might not. But again, we don't even know what "average" is for the purposes of the discussion, so who knows? Point is, it is broad and vague and cannot be proven nor disputed. That makes it DRIVEL, joe.

Additionally, aren't typical two-earner couples the exact demographic that would be expected to pay more in than they receive? Of course they are. That's why using them as the example to disprove the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman IS DRIVEL.

Get it? It has nothing to do with right wing, left wing, or hot & spicy Buffalo wing... it has everything to do with using your brain!
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#118797 Apr 29, 2013
The GOP at work advancing their knowledge oriented agenda:

The Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)(values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE)(mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

The Texas GOP doesn't want public school teachers to help students think for themselves. Because that might encourage original thought. It might encourage them to question those in authority, such as parents or politicians. It might help them master difficult subjects, but we wouldn't want that if it undermines “parental authority.”

“she may be a murderer, but....”

Since: Dec 07

she'll ensure U cant prove it

#118800 Apr 29, 2013
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Just wondering why you can't express yourself without stealing it from someone else....oh, well
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#118802 Apr 29, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
joe, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why the example and the statement you posted are flawed?
I'll explain:
Your quote: "Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing."
Right off the bat, it's nonsense. And here's why... It says, "accused by the uninformed" yet does not identify who these "uninformed accusers" are, nor when/where the "uninformed accusation" was made. It's a manufactured boogeyman. DRIVEL.
Next, the author tries to prove his winning argument by pointing out that, "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in."
Multiple problems here, as well. Specifically: The SS system is DESIGNED so that some people will pay more in than they'll receive in benefit. It has to be that way. Over the course of their respective careers, a doctor is going to pay more into SS than the person that answers the phone at his office. When they both pass away, the doctor will likely have received less than he paid in while his receptionist might get more than they paid in. So joe, this simple fact of life does not prove wrong the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman. Additional DRIVEL.
Next problem, the example of "the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes." Problems here too, joe... have you figured them out? If not, I'll share. "Average wages" isn't defined. We can only surmise that it is in the middle, right in the fat part of the bell curve. If you take the low end of what *could* be considered average, his statement might be true. If we take the high end, it might & it might not. But again, we don't even know what "average" is for the purposes of the discussion, so who knows? Point is, it is broad and vague and cannot be proven nor disputed. That makes it DRIVEL, joe.
Additionally, aren't typical two-earner couples the exact demographic that would be expected to pay more in than they receive? Of course they are. That's why using them as the example to disprove the (made-up) accusation by the (made-up) uninformed boogeyman IS DRIVEL.
Get it? It has nothing to do with right wing, left wing, or hot & spicy Buffalo wing... it has everything to do with using your brain!
BOOM!

Nice smack-down based on reasoned argument and fact.

He won't answer. He'll just move on to posting more cut-n-paste drivel.

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Time to go? (Jun '15) 4 min Into The Night 10,989
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 6 min -Glinda- 14,199
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 6 min FuMan Chu Yanks 39,339
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 8 min red sox fan 328,415
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min Into The Night 59,455
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 23 min zef 311,139
Frank P,Brown St.Pauls Methodist filth 37 min Plottmaster 2
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 3 hr Suff III 13,315
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages