Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Jun 8, 2009 Read more: Newsday 109,552
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. Read more
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#117781 Oct 22, 2012
olddogs1964 wrote:
you obama fans that close ur eyes and hope a new four year change is comeing your right a change is comeing and it will destory your way of life and liveing and ur hope then won,t be herd or thought about so u want to live on the streets in carboard boxs just keep supporting ur obama . u will not gain nothing for voteing for this man .
You guys love calling anybody who is not as insane as you an Obama fan. It's your post's that are filled with nutso, tin hat drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117782 Oct 22, 2012
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text> Fact: Romney was such a failure as Governor of Massachusetts that he did not run again because he knew he would lose.
Flaming Partisan Hack Lie #1.

Romney left the MA Governorship to run for President.

If Romney were the type who doesn't run unless he "knows he will win," please explain why he is running for POTUS against a popular incumbent today?
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text>He was the most unpopular Governor they ever had.
Flaming Partisan Hack Lie #2.

You have apparently never heard of Deval Patrick:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/25/dc-analysis...

22% approval rating. Most unpopular Governor of ALL 50 STATES.

Or, for that matter, Mike Dukakis - ran the Commonwealth so deep in debt they couldn't even calculate how broke they were for months. He wasn't even re-nominated by his own party.
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text> He raised taxes for 4 years in a row,...
Yeah. He was elected to pull the Commonwealth out of a massive debt hole. Unlike Obama, he delivered.

Besides, the citizens of the Democratic People's Commonwealth of Taxachusetts LOVE taxes. That's what makes them such dependable Democrats.

And this torques you off at Romney? So - you're saying you're a rabid anti-tax Teabagger & Grover Norquist fanboi, clueless surfer dude? Why are you sucking Obama's member, then?
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text>and raised gun permits to $100.00 each.
And now you're a rabid 2nd Amendment Teabagger/NRA gun nut also? My, my. Even more marvellous to see you shilling for Obama. So you're for free gun permits for all.

Got it.
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text> Romney does not hunt and probably can not even fire a straight shot.
Sorry. I just checked over the Job Description for PUTUS and I don't find firearms proficiency to be among the job skills required any more. I think that went out with Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.

Why is this so important to you?
ussurf wrote:
<quoted text>Romney avoided the draft,during the Vietnam war my becoming a missionary in France, and his idea of roughing it was to live in a very posh room in France, and then announce how horrible his living conditions were.You see his father whisked him away to keep him from fighting for the USA.None of Romney's 5 sons have fought for this country even though they can,according to the Mormon religion.
Would you like more facts or would you like to continue to insult the intelligence of other posters?
As a matter of fact, I would like to have more "facts" from you, thanks awfully - in particular - please detail for us Obama's and Joe Biden's military service histories. Given your spittle-flecked hyperventilation over Romney's lack of military service, I'm sure Obama's and Biden's record of heroic military service to our country in time of war stands in stark contrast, yeh?

Take your time - we'll wait.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117783 Oct 22, 2012
joe the Marin Partisan Dem Hack wrote:
Here's another right wing delusion:
Sen. Ted Kennedy’s temporary replacement wasn’t sworn in until Sept. 24 of 2009, giving Democrats a filibuster-proof majority for four months and one week until Republican Scott Brown filled Kennedy’s seat after a special election.
The claim that Obama had a filibuster proof majority over Congress for two years — yapped repeatedly by you clods because fox told you it was true — is more than just faulty memory. It’s a lie.
This is a fact that you can look up and report back here that you learned something. Let's see if you do.
Rubbish.

I've checked the numbers in detail.

Obama, Biden, Fancy Nancy Pelosi and Mad Harry Reid had a flat-out filibuster-proof Senate supermajority for 182 days or 25% of the of duration of the 111th US Congress. They had a supermajority, or needed only ONE vote for a supermajority for 560 days, or 3/4 of the time.

IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS IN US POLITICS.

So what did these incompetent leftist idealogues do with this unparalleled power for the 1st two years of the Obama presidency, while the US economy was melting down around us?

They WASTED it ramming ObamaScare down America's screaming throat.

This alone is rank and unforgiveable ineptitude, sufficient to warrant running Obama out of town on a rail even if he hadn't also presided over quadrupling the American death toll in Afghanistan, hundreds of innocents murdered by illegal weapons gun-walked across the Mexican border with the consent of Obama's Justice Dept, including US Border patrol Agent Brian Terry, and the deaths of 4 more Americans in Libya - AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT to cover up his own incompetence.

One vote away from an absolute dictatorship of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis for his first two years, and you're seriously whining about 'his program being blocked? They couldn't even manage to get only ONE Republican Senate vote for their programs?

Not even from George Voinovich or Olympia Snowe, who each voted with the Dems 31% of the time?

Not even from Arlen Spector, who voted with the Dems 68% of the time?

This is nothing more nor less than a damning indictment of Obama's abject failure as a President and a LEADER.

Throw the bum out.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117784 Oct 22, 2012
joe the Marin Leftist wrote:
Under Romney, Bain Capital's investments had a 30% failure rate.
The "green energy" portion of the stimulus has a 2.6% default rate. That includes Solyndra.
More rubbish - a completely foolish comparison.

VCs are in the business of raising funds voluntarily from private investors who are fully aware of the risks and in a position to put their capital at risk.

The US federal Government has NO BUSINESS confiscating hard-won private savings INVOLUNTARILY in taxes from the 98% of Americans who have far greater need and better/safer use for that money, for the purpose of giving hand-outs, bailouts, and subsidies to political friends and cronies.

Every single DOLLAR of taxpayer money that was squandered and lost on these "green" stimulus scams is an unconscionable wrong.

Accounts will be squared and the books closed on this crime in 15 days.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#117785 Oct 22, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish.
I've checked the numbers in detail.
Obama, Biden, Fancy Nancy Pelosi and Mad Harry Reid had a flat-out filibuster-proof Senate supermajority for 182 days or 25% of the of duration of the 111th US Congress. They had a supermajority, or needed only ONE vote for a supermajority for 560 days, or 3/4 of the time.
IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS IN US POLITICS.
So what did these incompetent leftist idealogues do with this unparalleled power for the 1st two years of the Obama presidency, while the US economy was melting down around us?
They WASTED it ramming ObamaScare down America's screaming throat.
This alone is rank and unforgiveable ineptitude, sufficient to warrant running Obama out of town on a rail even if he hadn't also presided over quadrupling the American death toll in Afghanistan, hundreds of innocents murdered by illegal weapons gun-walked across the Mexican border with the consent of Obama's Justice Dept, including US Border patrol Agent Brian Terry, and the deaths of 4 more Americans in Libya - AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT to cover up his own incompetence.
One vote away from an absolute dictatorship of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis for his first two years, and you're seriously whining about 'his program being blocked? They couldn't even manage to get only ONE Republican Senate vote for their programs?
Not even from George Voinovich or Olympia Snowe, who each voted with the Dems 31% of the time?
Not even from Arlen Spector, who voted with the Dems 68% of the time?
This is nothing more nor less than a damning indictment of Obama's abject failure as a President and a LEADER.
Throw the bum out.
I notice you didn't bring ANY evidence / proof, you know, objective verification, of your assertion (LIE). And like everyone of you party hacks that's okay with me, we are all used to it.

For your, actually for non-hacks information:

Democrats controlled the House from 2009-2011.

Democrats had total control of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A total of 4 MONTHS.

Obama had control of the House and the Senate for 4 entire months.

President Obama did not have total control of Congress during his first two years as president and to say anything else is just a plain old righty lie. Meant to confuse and manipulate the uninformed.

And you know better. Shame on you.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117786 Oct 22, 2012
joe the College of Marin Sophomore wrote:
<quoted text>
We're pretty certain you don't have either a bc or ssn. So get on back to the agitprop desk.
"We??" Who exactly is this "we" of whom you speak, Chimera ... uh ... I mean - "joe" <snicker>?

Ooooh - and I see we have a new favorite word we heard in drama class over at College of Marin, haven't we, joe ... "agitprop" ... that's so cute and tragically hipster of you.

Do try to stay awake for the WHOLE class next time, though - and refrain from using big words until you have obtained a full understanding of their meaning. Unless you MEANT to accuse me of practicing highly-politicized extreme leftist theatre ...

(Do hurry and reply - I'm going to read your response to this in my very best Pee Wee Herman impression - "I meant to do that ..." So much fun you are!)
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117787 Oct 22, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you didn't bring ANY evidence / proof, you know, objective verification, of your assertion (LIE). And like everyone of you party hacks that's okay with me, we are all used to it.
For your, actually for non-hacks information:
Democrats controlled the House from 2009-2011.
Democrats had total control of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A total of 4 MONTHS.
Obama had control of the House and the Senate for 4 entire months.
President Obama did not have total control of Congress during his first two years as president and to say anything else is just a plain old righty lie. Meant to confuse and manipulate the uninformed.
And you know better. Shame on you.
<sigh> Ok, joe. That's ok. We can't all possess rudimentary arithmentic skills ... here - I'll walk you thru it.

First: The data - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_Sta...

Now, scroll down to the "Party Summary" table for the Senate.

Your homework assignment is to do the arithmetic on how many votes Harry Reid controlled for the Dems (don't forget to include the the two independents - Jeffords and Lieberman - who caucused with the dems) vs how many votes were required for a 60% majority over each of the periods shown, taking account of vacancies.

Make sure to check your work. Ask Mom for help if you need it.

When you have done your sums correctly and have gotten over your little tantrum at the results, you will find the Dems held a 60% supermajority for the following periods:

7 July 2009-25 August 2009 (49 days)
9-10 Sept 2009 (1 day)
25 Sept 2009-4 Feb 2010 (132 days)

Total - 182 days during which Harry Reid and the Dems could ram whatever Bill they wanted through the Senate regardless of GOP opposition.

(Which they did, in fact - only it was Obamacare they rammed thru, not effective economic recovery measures; pouring gasoline on the fire. Throwing an anchor to a drowning man. GG Dems. You calculated you could ram your progressive health care wet-dream up America's unwilling azz "for Teddy" and still get away with blaming the resulting economic disaster on Bush - that the People were stupid enough not to call you on it. You suck. And you were wrong - you paid in 2010, and you're going to par even bigger for it in 2 weeks' time).

Then look at the periods during which Harry Reid needed to obtain only ONE GOP vote to ram whatever Bill they wanted through the Senate regardless of opposition from the rest of the GOP. You will find that in addition to the periods above, Harry Reid needed only ONE vote to hold absolute filibuster-proof sway over the Senate from 30th April 2009 all the way thru 28th Jun 2010, a further 136-day period from 16th July thru 29th November 2010.

There's your "evidence / proof, you know, objective verification" of what I posted.

Now - go back and read my post again; your reading comprehension skills also appear to need some brush-up.

I did not say the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis had 'total control of Congress during his first two years as president.' That's YOUR lame-azz strawman. I said they had total control of the 111th Congress for 182 days, and were one vote away from it for 560 days - and that IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS in US politics for a POTUS who is a COMPETENT political leader.

You have provided nothing in the way of objective fact or rational argument that gives me reason to re-visit my conclusions on Obama's epic incompetence as a politician and a leader.

“Impeach Obama!”

Since: Jul 08

Memphis, TN

#117788 Oct 22, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
Here's my take on last night: Obama scored a few points for actually showing up to the debate. I'll give them both a draw for style even though Obama did have some help from Crowley.
Romney, however, took the debate on substance. The constant fact manipulation by Obama was as transparent as the windshield on my car. It won't wash with the majority of Americans. Only the Obamadopes will bob their heads and drool while listening to Bark's drivel.
Americans are realizing that four more years of Obamacrap is just going to leave them with even less take-home pay, higher fuel prices, less jobs (wasn't that the original theme of this thread?), higher health care costs, more regulations, etc., etc., etc. Meanwhile, Romney offers solid plans to turn things around. He is a businessman. He understands how businesses function and how they create jobs. He knows what is needed to get the business community to start working again. He's been there and done that. Romney offers real hope.
Bottom line, even though Obozo showed up, it isn't going to be enough to stop the rising tide which is washing away his base. Romney should continue to pull ahead. Blow-out in November, anyone?
In a hilarious few minutes of the debate, Romney used Biden's own words to criticize the Illegitimate Obama Regime's lack of compassion and sincerity and honesty to the majority of the American People.

"Romney cast Obama as a president who failed to deliver on his promises — to lower the unemployment rate, to cut the deficit, to lift people out of poverty and to create more jobs.

“The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again,” Romney said, echoing as he had in the first debate a damaging phrase that Vice President Biden had used recently, when he said the middle class had been “crushed” during the past four years."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#117789 Oct 23, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh> Ok, joe. That's ok. We can't all possess rudimentary arithmentic skills ... here - I'll walk you thru it.
First: The data - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_Sta...
Now, scroll down to the "Party Summary" table for the Senate.
Your homework assignment is to do the arithmetic on how many votes Harry Reid controlled for the Dems (don't forget to include the the two independents - Jeffords and Lieberman - who caucused with the dems) vs how many votes were required for a 60% majority over each of the periods shown, taking account of vacancies.
Make sure to check your work. Ask Mom for help if you need it.
When you have done your sums correctly and have gotten over your little tantrum at the results, you will find the Dems held a 60% supermajority for the following periods:
7 July 2009-25 August 2009 (49 days)
9-10 Sept 2009 (1 day)
25 Sept 2009-4 Feb 2010 (132 days)
Total - 182 days during which Harry Reid and the Dems could ram whatever Bill they wanted through the Senate regardless of GOP opposition.
(Which they did, in fact - only it was Obamacare they rammed thru, not effective economic recovery measures; pouring gasoline on the fire. Throwing an anchor to a drowning man. GG Dems. You calculated you could ram your progressive health care wet-dream up America's unwilling azz "for Teddy" and still get away with blaming the resulting economic disaster on Bush - that the People were stupid enough not to call you on it. You suck. And you were wrong - you paid in 2010, and you're going to par even bigger for it in 2 weeks' time).
Then look at the periods during which Harry Reid needed to obtain only ONE GOP vote to ram whatever Bill they wanted through the Senate regardless of opposition from the rest of the GOP. You will find that in addition to the periods above, Harry Reid needed only ONE vote to hold absolute filibuster-proof sway over the Senate from 30th April 2009 all the way thru 28th Jun 2010, a further 136-day period from 16th July thru 29th November 2010.
There's your "evidence / proof, you know, objective verification" of what I posted.
Now - go back and read my post again; your reading comprehension skills also appear to need some brush-up.
I did not say the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis had 'total control of Congress during his first two years as president.' That's YOUR lame-azz strawman. I said they had total control of the 111th Congress for 182 days, and were one vote away from it for 560 days - and that IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS in US politics for a POTUS who is a COMPETENT political leader.
You have provided nothing in the way of objective fact or rational argument that gives me reason to re-visit my conclusions on Obama's epic incompetence as a politician and a leader.
You ramble and accuse but it's just 'cause you were caught lying. We all know how it works. Your math skills are as bad as your agitprop ramblings.

agitprop
Political strategy in which techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence public opinion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agi...

I think that sums you and your clumsy, middle-school attempts at cleverness. Now, run along. I have a World Series to prepare for.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#117790 Oct 23, 2012
Look these things up for yourself, people. Republicans LIE.

The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

And there was never a supermajority in the House. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of 59 percent, not 67.

Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.

There was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year.

By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer.(He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117791 Oct 23, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You ramble and accuse but it's just 'cause you were caught lying. We all know how it works. Your math skills are as bad as your agitprop ramblings.
agitprop
Political strategy in which techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence public opinion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agi...
I think that sums you and your clumsy, middle-school attempts at cleverness. Now, run along. I have a World Series to prepare for.
Fail.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#117792 Oct 23, 2012
joe wrote:
Look these things up for yourself, people. Republicans LIE.
The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.
And there was never a supermajority in the House. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of 59 percent, not 67.
Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
There was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year.
By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer.(He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office.
I have shown this narrative, with irreutable back-up facts sourced, to be nothing more than a lame partisan excuse for simple incompetency.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid had total control of the House and with Arlen Spector's GOP vote in the Senate (who voted with the Democrats most of the time in the 111th Congress) they had filibuster-proof control of the Senate for 75% of its term.

The nation needed a economic turnarund and growth - Obut they raped us with Obamacare instead.

The day of reckoning for this political crime comes in 2 weeks.
Obama Welfare Motors

Florham Park, NJ

#117793 Oct 23, 2012
More from the Government Motors scam:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/worker...

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#117794 Oct 23, 2012
looking forward to new jobs over sea,s got to love it . dumb and dumber takeing us down the crap hole

“Lovely year for a Guinness”

Since: Dec 07

Daytona Beach

#117795 Oct 23, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
fubo
Hey Pflug,

finally got to see "Obama 2016"; it just hit our "On Demand" service for Cablevision. Best $5 I ever spent. One of the most frightning documentries you'll ever see. For folks like us who grew up in the Reagan era, the facts from the past are there. What Barry has done now to cut our military and reducing our nuclear arms, sh!t, even Bubba would dream of doing that.
Lev

South Africa

#117796 Oct 23, 2012
Will be visiting America if Romney wins - I love a 'winning nation.' Romney has the intelligence to put America back on the road to recovery.

Good luck America.

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#117798 Oct 23, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Blow it out your azs. Submit your bill to the RNC, hack. Talk about cut and paste without understanding wtf you're talking about, you are priceless.
Looks like you were owned, PAU. ;-)

Since: Nov 08

Provo, UT

#117799 Oct 23, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"We??" Who exactly is this "we" of whom you speak, Chimera ... uh ... I mean - "joe" <snicker>?
Ooooh - and I see we have a new favorite word we heard in drama class over at College of Marin, haven't we, joe ... "agitprop" ... that's so cute and tragically hipster of you.
Do try to stay awake for the WHOLE class next time, though - and refrain from using big words until you have obtained a full understanding of their meaning. Unless you MEANT to accuse me of practicing highly-politicized extreme leftist theatre ...
(Do hurry and reply - I'm going to read your response to this in my very best Pee Wee Herman impression - "I meant to do that ..." So much fun you are!)
Teddy, don't you know that joe is the Queen of England? "We" is perfectly acceptable.
Politics as usual

Huntington Station, NY

#117800 Oct 23, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you were owned, PAU. ;-)
actually i am a little scared that Joe might get his mommy to yell at me, or start a chorus of liar, liar, pants on fire.

on a good note, Romney effectively used the rope-a-dope last night and he drew Obama right in, all Obama had left was his personal likeability and after last night, as disrespectful as he was, that will be gone as well.

now we have a president who is incompetent and corrupt, has done the worst job of any president in the history of this country, and who came across as likeable as Bill Maher does.

frankly unless the corrupt media led by the blowhard Candy Crowley at CNN and the new york rag can totally mislead the public, this election is over.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#117801 Oct 23, 2012
ya take down all of our defence and let every one in to kill us sounds like a plan for the next four years . hope u fool have lots of ammo .lol good luck

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min shinningelectr0n 1,208,309
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... 4 min Pro Ukraine 589
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min positronium 320,481
News 'Not going to change': Indiana gov defends reli... 6 min Cochran 103
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 7 min woodtick57 527
News US Congress concerned over Turkey's drift from ... 10 min Chuck 26
News Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 34 min fart 23,126
More from around the web