Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: 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
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#116617 Jul 2, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have read Roberts statement. I am still waiting for your review of the healthcare act though so you clarify where and why illegal aliens are exempt.
You obviously haven't read crap - or you wouldn't be standing there with your pants around your ankles still demanding that I show you what's stated in black-and-white on Pg 7 of Roberts' decision and on pp 147-148 of the ACA copy you yourself linked in your own post!

You're a joke! GTFO!
bozo 3341

Nashua, NH

#116618 Jul 2, 2012
That obama what a kidder !
He is the same guy who promised voters the most open above board administration America has ever had then once he got our vote he and his gang went behind closed doors to two years crafting the health care mess , some open honest adminstration hun??

Then the other stimulas bills all failed to do what he promised he would do so why would anyone beleive him now his track record delivering on promises sucks along with hi understanding of economics and how jobs are created
nac

Patchogue, NY

#116619 Jul 2, 2012
bozo 3341 wrote:
That obama what a kidder !
He is the same guy who promised voters the most open above board administration America has ever had then once he got our vote he and his gang went behind closed doors to two years crafting the health care mess , some open honest adminstration hun??
Then the other stimulas bills all failed to do what he promised he would do so why would anyone beleive him now his track record delivering on promises sucks along with hi understanding of economics and how jobs are created
Because these days... actions, results, truth do not matter to the majority of the people in this country. The only thing that matters is the D or the R next to the crooked politician's name. What they actually do does not matter a lick to most people anymore.

Most people have just become conditioned to hate the other party, and pay almost no attention to what their party does. Obama the President has been the exact opposite of Obama the candidate, and most of his policies have been a disaster. Do the liberals care? No. Too busy claiming that the republicans are the one's causing the problem, Issa is running a witch hunt, fox news lies, Limbaugh hates (group du jour), and of course BUSH!!!!

Republicans are no better. They stood by cheering as he wiped his azz with the Constitution and acted a fool for 8 years.

The good news? These two administrations have been so unbelievably bad that people are starting to wake up. Not many people around here, ha ha, but a lot of Americans out there are upset and want Liberty and freedom restored.

Spread the word & we might get our Republic back.
Politics as usual

Huntington Station, NY

#116620 Jul 2, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
The best part of all this is that the Dems are in a Catch-22 situation. If they keep claiming that it is not a tax,then they will find themselves in the position of defending an unconstitutional law. The first time someone has to pay the "not a tax," they will be right back in court for levying an unconstitutional fine. If they go along with the court, then they must defend themselves as having foisted the largest tax increase upon this nation since Social Security. It is almost humorous to watch the squirming going on.
it is unbelievable now seeing pelosi, schumer and the rest of the democrats calling this a penalty after Obama's own lawyers claimed it was a tax in court.

just lying through their teeth,

that is what the democratic party is all about,

lies and deceit,

kickbacks and payoffs.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116621 Jul 2, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
And further, "selective enforcement" doesn't IMPLY anything. If you want a waiver, you apply for one. If they give you one, they have decided that their new law doesn't apply to you.
If they did not give you one they could have found your application was incomplete, improper, etc....

In adition, if you are correct the waiver would be permanent, correct? And if you want to debate that point, how are applications going this year?

You got nothing and you are grasping at straws.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#116622 Jul 2, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
If they did not give you one they could have found your application was incomplete, improper, etc....
In adition, if you are correct the waiver would be permanent, correct? And if you want to debate that point, how are applications going this year?
You got nothing and you are grasping at straws.
I realize that you're not going to get it... because you don't want to get it. But here goes anyway:

Through this waiver process, they are SELECTING who the law applies to and who the law does not apply to.

BY DEFINITION that is selective enforcement of the law.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116623 Jul 2, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Wassamatter - can't read, twit?
26 U. S. C. Section 5000A(d)- just as I previously cited. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.
The exemption appears on pp. 147-148 of the link you posted - showing you don't even read your own links before posting!
(d) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this section—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable individual’ means,
with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (2),(3), or (4).
...
(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Such term
shall not include an individual for any month if for the month
the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States
or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
And you didn't even know that, did you, Obobo boy? You're still shocked.

Lame Nathan Thurm imitation response in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Here is what I have in Section 5

"TITLE V—HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
Subtitle A—Purpose and Definitions
SEC. 5001. PURPOSE."

has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

And your point I suppose is that we should cover illegal immigrants?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116624 Jul 2, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. The nation desperately NEEDED reductions in the COST of healthcare.
What they got rammed down their throat by the Pelosi-Reid progressive axis was a vast EXPANSION of federal meddling, intrusion, and bureaucracy and unaffordable benefits - the cost of which is shifted onto the backs of others.
what the nation desparately needed was an expansion to cover all citizens. But it is nice to see you call Romney's plan a failure.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116625 Jul 2, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously haven't read crap - or you wouldn't be standing there with your pants around your ankles still demanding that I show you what's stated in black-and-white on Pg 7 of Roberts' decision and on pp 147-148 of the ACA copy you yourself linked in your own post!
You're a joke! GTFO!
LMAO@U. You are beating me up for saying we should not be providing healthcare to illegal aliens? Your full of your normal manure.

Nice to see you think they should be included in the healthcare bill.

You were the one that said Section 5000. Not me. I looked where you indicated. Your the joke......like most Republicans.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#116626 Jul 2, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you're not going to get it... because you don't want to get it. But here goes anyway:
Through this waiver process, they are SELECTING who the law applies to and who the law does not apply to.
BY DEFINITION that is selective enforcement of the law.
God, you guys are tedious. On and on, with the carping and belittling and criticism and anger. Offer something positive, like how can the law be improved. There are a lot of really good things in there. Stuff many Americans need, desperately. Why not lighten up and offer suggestions for improvement?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116627 Jul 2, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you're not going to get it... because you don't want to get it. But here goes anyway:
Through this waiver process, they are SELECTING who the law applies to and who the law does not apply to.
BY DEFINITION that is selective enforcement of the law.
BS, through the waiver process they are granting additional time to those who have special circumstances to comply with the law.

Tell me any waiver approved for a union that was a permanent, you can always keep it, waiver from complying with the law. And you know we are not talking about the union of Catholic priests.

So is it the law does not apply or is it you need additional time.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#116628 Jul 2, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you're not going to get it... because you don't want to get it. But here goes anyway:
Through this waiver process, they are SELECTING who the law applies to and who the law does not apply to.
BY DEFINITION that is selective enforcement of the law.
Actually, not necessarilly. If they have set, objective criteria and they use that criteria consistantly it would not be considered selective enforcement.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#116629 Jul 2, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
BS, through the waiver process they are granting additional time to those who have special circumstances to comply with the law.
Tell me any waiver approved for a union that was a permanent, you can always keep it, waiver from complying with the law. And you know we are not talking about the union of Catholic priests.
So is it the law does not apply or is it you need additional time.
They are "granting additional time" [to comply with the law at a later date, a date that they will decide]. Still selective enforcement of the law.

Just because you approve of this selective enforcement of the law, doesn't make it any less selective enforcement of the law. Just because you don't mind, doesn't make it any less selective enforcement of the law. Just because you think it is brilliant, doesn't make it any less selective enforcement of the law.

You can't change the definition to fit your political narrative. That may work in liberal circles, but not with me.

Just admit it... it is selective enforcement of the law... and you support it. It's not that hard.
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#116630 Jul 2, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what I have in Section 5
"TITLE V—HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
Subtitle A—Purpose and Definitions
SEC. 5001. PURPOSE."
has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.
And your point I suppose is that we should cover illegal immigrants?
You're an idiot.

I gave you the page references because I knew you were too stupid to know the difference between the USC cite and slip law cite.

Dismissed.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#116631 Jul 2, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
God, you guys are tedious. On and on, with the carping and belittling and criticism and anger. Offer something positive, like how can the law be improved. There are a lot of really good things in there. Stuff many Americans need, desperately. Why not lighten up and offer suggestions for improvement?
Aww. Sorry joe, didn't mean to upset you.{{hair tussle}} Now run along, little fella!
finding

Jonesboro, AR

#116632 Jul 2, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea since I am committed to voting Republican this time around.
I want them to be serious about the deficit and balance the budget in no more than 4 - 5 years. And they need to do it without raising taxes one dime and preferrably with more tax cuts.
I do believe the republicans can do that, that's why I am voting for Romney.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#116633 Jul 2, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww. Sorry joe, didn't mean to upset you.{{hair tussle}} Now run along, little fella!
I see, nothing to offer. That's your whole belief structure, party, the whole right wing. Nothing to offer. You've chosen the Dark Side.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#116634 Jul 3, 2012
Lockheed Martin
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$1,927,900
> Donations to Democratic Party: 38%
> Donations to Republican Party: 62%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$3,979,250
Bank of America Corporation
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,125,513
> Donations to Democratic Party: 26%
> Donations to Republican Party: 74%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$870,000
Honeywell International Inc.
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,222,605
> Donations to Democratic Party: 37%
> Donations to Republican Party: 63%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$1,750,000
Political Donations:
Huntsman Corporation
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,250,389
> Donations to Democratic Party: 0%
> Donations to Republican Party: 100%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$100,000
Microsoft Corporation
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,253,565
> Donations to Democratic Party: 68%
> Donations to Republican Party: 32%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$1,790,000
Microsoft Corporation
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,253,565
> Donations to Democratic Party: 68%
> Donations to Republican Party: 32%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$1,790,000
Dreamworks Animations SKG Inc.
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,370,150
> Donations to Democratic Party: 99%
AT&T, Inc.
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$2,504,219
> Donations to Democratic Party: 35%
> Donations to Republican Party: 65%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$7,050,000
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$4,769,994
> Donations to Democratic Party: 29%
> Donations to Republican Party: 71%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$1,380,000
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing):$11,738,600
> Donations to Democratic Party: 0%
> Donations to Republican Party: 100%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing):$30,000

“Forward - over the cliff!!”

Since: Jul 10

Soetoro, Kenya

#116635 Jul 3, 2012
There goes Holder, playing the victim card. LMAO.

"If you can't stand the heat...."

Eric Holder is a disgrace, like his boss and buddy, Obama the Teleprompter Stooge.

“Forward - over the cliff!!”

Since: Jul 10

Soetoro, Kenya

#116636 Jul 3, 2012
Pittakos wrote:
<quoted text>
Pflug, you know you are welcome to come out here anytime you want. When you start adding in all the other things we owe and will owe in the future, it really does get pretty scary.
Yup. Every man woman and child in this country already owes about $200K-300K (federal debt, and state and local which will vary) plus or minus depending on your state and local underlying debt.

People in NY, NJ, Cal, Illinois are really screwed. Many like NY have very high bonded debt (including all these "authorities" that the state designs to take debt off the books, but is in fact paid by taxpayers), and some like Illinois add in billions in unfunded pension (mostly for cops, teachers, since thats where the big headcount is) debt.

The evil public sector unions make all kinds of silly arguments justifying their gold plated pensions and benefits. They lie. The numbers don't.

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.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: D & M Auto Sales (Jul '14) 6 hr another garage 11
News Superior Court rules evidence in York murder ca... (Mar '11) Mar 15 fredos-cellie-in-YCP 13
Girls looking to hook up in York? Mar 9 sexyfacencck 2
Watch Out! Robert R Howard out of jail and scam... Mar 8 Grandmother 2
News York-area residents recall moments of racism (Jan '10) Feb '15 colorblind 38
News Brian Williams suspended for it, but everybody ... Feb '15 Robot High School 13
Review: Complete Construction & Maint Inc Feb '15 Dan Brinkman 1
York Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]