Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109487 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.

Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51078 Apr 28, 2010
Devin wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact there were deficits at all is ruinous to any capable manager.
That's part of the theory and logic that forged America into this current fiscal sistuaiton.
Nonsense. Many strong companies and governments have a reasonable debt policy. Do you have a mortgage? A mortgage is debt. So are treasury bonds. The question is, what is a responsible level of debt to carry, and was the debt incurred for the right reasons.
Devin

Newport News, VA

#51079 Apr 28, 2010
I pretty much can agree with a few of your sentiments, but would you just eliminate taxes althgether?
Vic wrote:
<quoted text>
You make it sound like these corporations actually pay the taxes themselves, in reality all they do is pass it on to us.
This is just a hidden tax and another way for the politicians to get money to fund their wasteful agenda.
If I thought for a minute that all these politicians were anything but corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder no matter what party they say they are in, I might feel differently.
But the bottom line is that the politicians policies are mostly shaped by who is paying them, and the money that they kick back is not their own, but that of the people.
And to then turn back to the very people they tax, and blame them for increased costs is at best hypocritical and more likely deceptive and corrupt.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#51080 Apr 28, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
How could he keep it balance when he walked into a recession, when the Nasdaq just tanked from 5000 to 1500, when 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, and when Katrina wiped out a city?
Could he have done a better job? Sure, much better. But overall, the deficits as a percentage of the economy were NOT ruinous during the Bush years. They are now.
It is not any one year's deficit that does it, it is the total debt accumulated over time.

I will grant anyone a pass during a recession or at the start of a war. Other than that, he should have balanced the budget.

And the Tech bubble burst under Clinton, not bush. bush has a slight recession his first year and it really was slight. So that gets him '01 and '02 passes. I already gave him a pass for '08 and '09. What about '03 through '07? They should have been balanced.

BTW: Clinton came close to balancing the budget in spite of the tech bubble.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#51081 Apr 28, 2010
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO (and I'm a technologist), 99% of it is economically or technically infeasible.
IYO, what is going wrong with Europe's and China's implementation of green technology?
Devin

Newport News, VA

#51082 Apr 28, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Many strong companies and governments have a reasonable debt policy. Do you have a mortgage? A mortgage is debt. So are treasury bonds. The question is, what is a responsible level of debt to carry, and was the debt incurred for the right reasons.

Dick Cheney is that you?
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51083 Apr 28, 2010
Devin wrote:
Why just the Health Care Insurance Companies? Would you also option to eliminate taxes on all profit seeking corporations in America across every industry?
<quoted text>
Once again, Devin, the point of his comment has completely eluded you. He is talking about the hidden tax we pay through our health insurance premiums, which are high largely because Medicare and Medicaid are such poor payors.

I realize you won't understand any of what I just wrote.

Further, you would not understand the quote I put up before: "Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them."

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#51084 Apr 28, 2010
george barnett wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that "some" Green Technology will work.I am all for research.I am fine if you reach for your wallet first---cause much of it is oversold.Exhibit one would be corn ethanol as a green solution.It is only cost effective due to taxpayor subsidies.You have an entire industry built on a lie.There is very little "Net energy return" when you figure in fertilizer,transport,processin g,etc.On the consumer end,ethanol has less energy per gallon that gas so the blend hurts your mileage.Ethanol is also hard on the plastic and rubber components of your vehicle fuel system.Solar for my home?? Hell no.If i lived in a totally frost free area,i would plumb in a simple batch water heater.I wouldn't put a lot of money into a fragile,complicated system.The huge problem with home solar electric is the battery bank.It contains toxics(lead,acid),has a limited lifespan,requires careful maintenance,and in most cases is vastly more costly than good old Duke Power.It would be cost effective if i lived waaaaaay beyond the power lines------,but would it be an environmental choice for me to cut a long road,drive further to work,etc? Net impact again.My buddy lives much father from work.Burned more gas each week in his Prius Hybrid than i did in my old Ford truck.Where have i put my "green" dollars so far----3 LED flashlights,fabric awnings over my windows at 1/20 the cost of superwindows,extra attic insulation,window box fans instead of turning on the ac,fewer convenience foods,less packaging,less eating out.I'm not saving the earth;i am conserving dollars.Can't just shop your way to EDEN.
Not one solution fits all areas. Battery might work in a city but fuel cell might be the ansdwer to transportion in rural areas. And lets to forget natural gas.

Solar is being used at some military facilities in the desert. They are just approving the wind farm offshore in Massechusettes now that Kennedy can not block it.

Ethanol is not green, but it is an alternative to oil.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#51085 Apr 28, 2010
yepperz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain.
;-)
No answer yet?

tsk tsk........do you ever read anything other than Sam?

here is another Sam for ya:

"Astride of a grave and a difficult birth. Down in the hole, lingeringly, the grave-digger puts on the forceps. We have time to grow old. The air is full of our cries.(He listens.) But habit is a great deadener."
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51086 Apr 28, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not any one year's deficit that does it, it is the total debt accumulated over time.
I will grant anyone a pass during a recession or at the start of a war. Other than that, he should have balanced the budget.
And the Tech bubble burst under Clinton, not bush. bush has a slight recession his first year and it really was slight. So that gets him '01 and '02 passes. I already gave him a pass for '08 and '09. What about '03 through '07? They should have been balanced.
BTW: Clinton came close to balancing the budget in spite of the tech bubble.
The taxes (largely capital gains on realized income) soared during the Clinton years. The same taxes dropped precipitously during the recession that Bush inherited from Clinton.

The same thing happened last year, by the way. In a recession, taxes drop, and government expenditures increase. Its always that way. Presidents cannot control this.
1 post removed

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#51088 Apr 28, 2010
DavidH64 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK enough of Bush "this", Bush "that". I have said too many times I agree. What part of that you missing man? Come'on
Now back to your question, "what you mean by not taking responsibility". You serious? This administration has yet to take responsibility for it's spending. And in many cases, falsely blaming Bush, for the spending they [Obama administration and Congress] are doing.
Was the spending, by Obama, necessary? IMO, no. ARRA has already proven to be ineffective. Whereas TARP has been proven effective. NO, I am not giving kudos to Bush, but ARRA was overkill. It had not been 3months and Obama pushed for another $787billion (ARRA), then another $730billion in Omnibus.
In a report from Treasury, DEC 2009, TARP was identified as being more effective than anticipated towards positive recovery. I will look for the link to the report later. I have posted it a couple of times before, on this board I believe.
OKB you are smarter than that. You are one of the few I can have a discussion and not get into a slug-fest of attacks and insults. LOL
NO, this administration has explained the spending as necessary and seeks to remind people that they inherited a defict, it is nothing new.
1 post removed

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#51090 Apr 28, 2010
Devin wrote:
<quoted text>
The quivering cowards they are, most of the Democrats voted to go.
Do you believe we should have gone?
You want my answer to that again? You and I have been around that one before. NO, I am against the wars.
Pelosi Schmelosi Too

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#51091 Apr 28, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>The quality of the comments on this forum have deteriorated severely over the lasst few days.
..and YOU have added to it...
THANKS!!
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51092 Apr 28, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not any one year's deficit that does it, it is the total debt accumulated over time.
I will grant anyone a pass during a recession or at the start of a war. Other than that, he should have balanced the budget.
And the Tech bubble burst under Clinton, not bush. bush has a slight recession his first year and it really was slight. So that gets him '01 and '02 passes. I already gave him a pass for '08 and '09. What about '03 through '07? They should have been balanced.
BTW: Clinton came close to balancing the budget in spite of the tech bubble.
You seem to simply brush off the stock market collapse in 2000. I remember it vividly. It was a crisis. Not just a little blip.

Bush's fiscal actions (the tax cuts) and Fed actions (reduced interest rates) kept the recession fairly brief. They both did a good job.

I do agree with you that when the recession ended, the deficits should have been reined in though. Like I said earlier, I'd give Bush about a C- grade on his handling of the budget.
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51093 Apr 28, 2010
Devin wrote:
<quoted text>
Dick Cheney is that you?
Yes it is Devin. You are corresponding with Dick Cheney.
NYStateOfMind

New York, NY

#51094 Apr 28, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than the silly consumer protection nonsense, designed to appeal to libs, I think its an excellent bill.

Too bad Republicans, and Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska (under orders from Obama supporter Warren Buffet), oppose it.
Where is the demonizing in the financial reform bill?...
Pelosi Schmelosi Too

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#51095 Apr 28, 2010
Devin wrote:
The Extremist on the Fringe makes is hard to critize the current Administration being they are intent on assigning the catastrophe of the previous administration on this administration.
It's getting old to oppose common sense solutions when the opposition has no solutions at all.
The Wheels are coming off of the Republican Party because of this strategy. Judge Sotomayor, the Arizona Immigration bill, and steadfast refusal to work on Financial Reform will be the undoing of the remaindedr of the Independent Voters support for the Republican/ Tea Baggers........
November can't get here fast enough.
Actually YOUR continued
B O O O L S P I T
on this thread it's what's REEEELY getting "old"
!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the reminder...
Devin

Newport News, VA

#51096 Apr 28, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, Devin, the point of his comment has completely eluded you. He is talking about the hidden tax we pay through our health insurance premiums, which are high largely because Medicare and Medicaid are such poor payors.
I realize you won't understand any of what I just wrote.
Further, you would not understand the quote I put up before: "Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them."
Revenue above expenditures are subject to taxes..... Would you eliminate Corporate Taxes?

How would you apportion industry subsidies?
Pelosi Schmelosi Too

“It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT”

Since: Sep 09

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#51097 Apr 28, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, this administration has explained the spending as necessary and seeks to remind people that they inherited a defict, it is nothing new.
YOU'RE RIGHT!

Tax-and-Spend LIBERAL TOOLS trying to spin their agenda as "necessary" is nothing new...
Pfluger the Union Monkey

Boston, MA

#51098 Apr 28, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, this administration has explained the spending as necessary and seeks to remind people that they inherited a defict, it is nothing new.
Declaring the spending to be necessary does not make it so. I disagree vehemently, as do others, that the stimulus was well spent. Very little was an "investment." Mostly it was money transferred to unionized public employee groups.

Second, Obama did inherit a deficit. And he was in Congress two years voting for the spending bills, including the TARP. Also, he is now taking the deficit he inherited and exploding it.
Vic

Islip, NY

#51099 Apr 28, 2010
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely Vic. I don't know who said it, but there is a quote that goes like this: "Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes."
Liberals have very little understanding of economics and finance, as demonstrated on this very thread.
Sometimes you wonder if they do understand everything, but act stupid in order to have an entity to villify, and a way to fund their tax and spend agenda.

The amount of hidden taxes is outrageous, especially in states like New York, where the politicians refuse to cut spending, but just work on creative ways to add taxes, like the hidden tax on health care which I outlined.

How the democrats could portray themselves as proponents of inexpensive health care for all, yet have the nerve to tax health care procedures is disgraceful.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Joy 1,602,221
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min russianrepukes 289,235
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 15 min skyedove 31,226
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 24 min cpeter1313 10,121
News Hamilton Center selected as 1 of 5 new Indiana ... 45 min Humanspirit 4
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 317,564
News Murderer sues Kansas prison for 'imposing Chris... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 13
More from around the web