Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,560
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. Full Story
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#52868 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
And you were tlaking about calling names?
And btw, I have never once referred to you as an Obamatron. For one, you generally try to argue points and policies rather than mindlessly parroting DNC talking points. You can explain what you mean, without simply parroting. I have even seen you admit to a factual mistake (Obama's continuation of Bush's renditioning program, for example).

Obamatrons, on the other hand, parrot words they clearly have no understanding of, and refuse to ever admit they are mistaken, on anything.

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52869 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the largest imposter of all. The graph you are referencing shows the DISTRIBUTION of unemployed not the percentage of unemployed.
So of the 100 people out of work, 46 of them were out of work for a period of weeks. That really does not tell us much.
What it does tell us though is that this economic downturn has been long.
I'm NOT "referencing" any
G R A P H
Y O U
M O R O N
!!!!!!!!!

Spin it ANY WAY YOU WANT
O B O Z O T R O N
demand is NOT keeping-up with supply or did they NOT teach economics at YOUR "accredited" on-line school of LOWER learning
!!!!!!!!!!

What the BLEEEP do YOU think 46/100 is NUMBNUTS???
It tells us that the long-term unemployed ARE STILL UNEMPLOYED!
If jobs were REEEELY being created and supply exceeded demand, this number would be going DOWN NOT UP!!
It demonstrates that PORKULUS
D I D
N O T
W O R K
!!!!!!!!!!

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez YOU ARE A
D O P E
!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps YOU should
R E O R G A N I Z E (LOL)
the scrambled eggs that reside where YOUR brain matter should be
!!!!!!!!!!

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52870 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I was discussing fedeeral workers, not state. Teachers can not always strike. In some states it is against the law. Any state that is "right to work" is also anti-union.
"Right-to-work" states are NOT anti-union.
It means that UNION membership need not be a condition of employment.

Again - M O R O N
!!!!!!!!!!

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52871 May 7, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
And btw, I have never once referred to you as an Obamatron. For one, you generally try to argue points and policies rather than mindlessly parroting DNC talking points. You can explain what you mean, without simply parroting. I have even seen you admit to a factual mistake (Obama's continuation of Bush's renditioning program, for example).
Obamatrons, on the other hand, parrot words they clearly have no understanding of, and refuse to ever admit they are mistaken, on anything.
"Right-to-work" states are "anti-union" ISN'T a DNC talking point??

ROTFLMAO!
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#52872 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
What ambiguity on Afghanistan? If any leader was ambiguous about Afghanistan it was bush and the way he failed to support it.
Exactly what problems are being "caused" by Obama's stance on Afghanistan?
OK B. Here is my problem on Afghanistan vis-a-vis Obama. In March 2009, he announced with great fanfare that he was appointing General McChrystal, and that he had a comprehensive "plan". Hear him speak here:

"Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New...

Then, in the summer of 2009, McChrystal requested about 50,000 troops for Afghanistan. I watched Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press stating that the administraion was studying the request, and she had "no idea" what the result would be, whether any or all of the troops would be sent. Obama himself then said that he would not be hurried, and it took MONTHS for Obama to agree to about 30,000.

Therefore, there was no "plan" in March 2009. It was just another speech, another photo-op, another PR performance. I believe Obama makes grandiose speeches announcing "plans", but there really are no plans.

Just like with the "plans" to create millions of new green jobs, for $150 billion over ten years, there never was a real plan. Goals are not plans. He might have goals, but reading a goal in public during a speech does not constitute a plan to achieve the goal.(I think you said you are former military, so I think you understand what I mean)

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#52873 May 7, 2010
Speaking about yesteday's financial roller-coaster ride:
Given the multi-trillion dollar US debt, some fear a similar fate for the United States, "I look at the horrible images coming out of Greece and I am struck by the reality of what can happen when a country goes on a shopping spree without paying its bills. Thank goodness America is not at that point," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (VA).
Certainly we have a Republican that is completely as delusional as the libs. If he can't see that we aren't paying the bills (except with borrowed money) then he is nuts and needs to go.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#52874 May 7, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
And btw, I have never once referred to you as an Obamatron. For one, you generally try to argue points and policies rather than mindlessly parroting DNC talking points. You can explain what you mean, without simply parroting. I have even seen you admit to a factual mistake (Obama's continuation of Bush's renditioning program, for example).
Obamatrons, on the other hand, parrot words they clearly have no understanding of, and refuse to ever admit they are mistaken, on anything.
I think I told Devin sometime back that I could get along with you if I did not read everyone of your posts. Must have been one of the ones I should have skipped over. My bad.
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#52875 May 7, 2010
Pittakos wrote:
Speaking about yesteday's financial roller-coaster ride:
<quoted text>
Certainly we have a Republican that is completely as delusional as the libs. If he can't see that we aren't paying the bills (except with borrowed money) then he is nuts and needs to go.
I agree. Obama is an utter failure and a disgrace, IMO. The Republicans also have some hacks.

I happen to like Judd Gregg, but he is retiring. I also like Floyd Flake (AZ) and Mike Pence (IN). I can't think of a single Democrat I have even a modicum of respect for. Maybe the guy from Virginia (can't think of his name), the "blue dog," on a few topics. I once had respect for Stupak, but he turned out to be just a hack with no core beliefs either. At least he had the good taste to step down after his embarrassing flip flop, with gave us ObamaCare, an absolute catastrophe that will have to be repealed or drastically revised.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#52876 May 7, 2010
Pelosi Schmelosi Too wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm NOT "referencing" any
G R A P H
Y O U
M O R O N
!!!!!!!!!
Spin it ANY WAY YOU WANT
O B O Z O T R O N
demand is NOT keeping-up with supply or did they NOT teach economics at YOUR "accredited" on-line school of LOWER learning
!!!!!!!!!!
What the BLEEEP do YOU think 46/100 is NUMBNUTS???
It tells us that the long-term unemployed ARE STILL UNEMPLOYED!
If jobs were REEEELY being created and supply exceeded demand, this number would be going DOWN NOT UP!!
It demonstrates that PORKULUS
D I D
N O T
W O R K
!!!!!!!!!!
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez YOU ARE A
D O P E
!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps YOU should
R E O R G A N I Z E (LOL)
the scrambled eggs that reside where YOUR brain matter should be
!!!!!!!!!!
I have been preaching for some time that we need to view unemployment numbers differently. I am all for posting unemployment along with posting the number of fully employed.

The fact that the unemployment number goes up when a lot of jobs are "created" also indicates long-term unemployment is a problem.

You are referencing a graph presented numerically.

It is a problem with the ditzy way you present your information, not necessarilly what you are saying in this case.
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#52877 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I told Devin sometime back that I could get along with you if I did not read everyone of your posts. Must have been one of the ones I should have skipped over. My bad.
Ah, I like to be inflammatory sometimes. ;-)

Like when I call Obama "The Kenyan." Its hot personally directed against you. You see, I don't agree with Obama's policies, and I think he lies in order to ram through his agenda. I do think Obama is a socialist. I think the evidence is overwhelming.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#52878 May 7, 2010
Pelosi Schmelosi Too wrote:
<quoted text>
"Right-to-work" states are NOT anti-union.
It means that UNION membership need not be a condition of employment.
Again - M O R O N
!!!!!!!!!!
In general, "Right to work" means you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Additionally, most of these states allow a very liberal "no compete" clause in contracts and other actions to the detriment of workers.

Things a strong union would not allow. Hence, anti-union. that would go along with your "don't have to be a member to work" clause.

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52879 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Any state that is "right to work" is also anti-union.
Must be Reagan's fault LOL!!!

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52880 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, "Right to work" means you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Additionally, most of these states allow a very liberal "no compete" clause in contracts and other actions to the detriment of workers.
Things a strong union would not allow. Hence, anti-union. that would go along with your "don't have to be a member to work" clause.
Ummmmmm...

Plenty of private sector employees have "no compete" clauses....

MORE SPIN!!

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#52881 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been preaching for some time that we need to view unemployment numbers differently. I am all for posting unemployment along with posting the number of fully employed.
The fact that the unemployment number goes up when a lot of jobs are "created" also indicates long-term unemployment is a problem.
You are referencing a graph presented numerically.
It is a problem with the ditzy way you present your information, not necessarilly what you are saying in this case.
That ALL ya got.....a "graph presented numerically"??
Yalk about
D I T Z Y
!!!!!!!!!!

bw-a-a-a-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#52882 May 7, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
OK B. Here is my problem on Afghanistan vis-a-vis Obama. In March 2009, he announced with great fanfare that he was appointing General McChrystal, and that he had a comprehensive "plan". Hear him speak here:
"Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New...
Then, in the summer of 2009, McChrystal requested about 50,000 troops for Afghanistan. I watched Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press stating that the administraion was studying the request, and she had "no idea" what the result would be, whether any or all of the troops would be sent. Obama himself then said that he would not be hurried, and it took MONTHS for Obama to agree to about 30,000.
Therefore, there was no "plan" in March 2009. It was just another speech, another photo-op, another PR performance. I believe Obama makes grandiose speeches announcing "plans", but there really are no plans.
Just like with the "plans" to create millions of new green jobs, for $150 billion over ten years, there never was a real plan. Goals are not plans. He might have goals, but reading a goal in public during a speech does not constitute a plan to achieve the goal.(I think you said you are former military, so I think you understand what I mean)
Go back and read the one-pager that is embedded in your link. It details the plan.

As part of that, McChrystal was to review what was going on in Afghansistan and where did we want to go. He presented that with several option at the end of Aug to Obama. Of the options, his recommendation was for 40,000 more Soldiers, over and above the 17,000 Obama had already approved in February, 2009.

The final outcome was 30K US forces and the remainder made up by NATO. NATO has had and continues to have more forces in Afghanistan than the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#52883 May 7, 2010
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Was his master plan to allow millions to simply starve to death each year. When there are disasters is he responsible for all the millionns of deaths, hey being all knowing he knew all of that was going to happen, yet he allowed it anyway...What kind of love and planning is that? Get real. just a little common sense goes a long way. To believe because you are afraid not to is extortion, don't you think.
Life is up to us. That's what the Bible teaches. It's deeper than you think - much deeper.

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#52884 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Marxist? Anti-American?
You throw words around like they mean nothing as you are unwilling to defend your own statements.
Child, myself and many other have been writing about this stuff for months. You are going in circles. We keep explaining things and you refuse to absorb any information that conflicts with your religion - Modern Liberalism/Progressivism.

Show us your learning abilities.

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#52885 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion was around long before Jesus walked the earth. He could have spoken against it if he chose to. I do believe however that he would work through education and example to discourage abortion while keeping the option legal. Being a Christian is about choosing, not legistlating.
It's called murder so he would be against it.

And yes, being a Christian is about choosing - choosing the right path over the wrong path. It's a battle for people every single day.

The "liberal" answer is that there is no "wrong" path, that it's just different. But that's wrong itself.

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#52886 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and read the one-pager that is embedded in your link. It details the plan.
As part of that, McChrystal was to review what was going on in Afghansistan and where did we want to go. He presented that with several option at the end of Aug to Obama. Of the options, his recommendation was for 40,000 more Soldiers, over and above the 17,000 Obama had already approved in February, 2009.
The final outcome was 30K US forces and the remainder made up by NATO. NATO has had and continues to have more forces in Afghanistan than the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...
Yes, but you forgot how Obama dangerously delayed the decision (actually hid from it) for months.

Obama's speeches on Afghanistan have been terrible too. As the ambiguity increases, our ability to win diminishes.

Liberals suffer from the notion that "we can't win" or "win what?" If Obama was a good leader, he'd be talking about it more.

He can't even say "thank you" to Bush for doing a good job in Iraq - a job that the liberals and our other enemies said couldn't be done.
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#52888 May 7, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and read the one-pager that is embedded in your link. It details the plan.
As part of that, McChrystal was to review what was going on in Afghansistan and where did we want to go.
Thanks, I will. But don't you think, having written what you just did, that there was no "comprehensive plan" in March? That's my point. Obama had soaring rhetoric about a comprehensive plan, but in fact, the plan was still being developed.

I suppose I might be picking nits here. But as far as his economic/job creation plans (I posted them earlier), its clear that there were no plans. They were simply goals. There was no plan to achieve the goals, other than to throw billions of dollars at states and hope for the best.

It was FALSE ADVERTISING in the extreme to say he had a plan, for $150 billion, to create 5 million new green jobs. If there was such a "plan," why wasn't it implemented??

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,192,608
Who do you side with in Ferguson? (Aug '14) 4 min Allen Richards 12,095
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Fixed News 172,383
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 4 min e mail 3,396
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Cheech the Conser... 313,432
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 5 min Frizzo 261
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min paul porter 149,858
Netanyahu Assails Iran-Nuclear Talks In Congres... 25 min HeMadeSoMany 62
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Ben... 1 hr Jeff Brightone 6
Senate fails to override Keystone pipeline veto 1 hr Turtle Time 7
More from around the web