Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,591
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

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115294 May 28, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Any that don't perform and produce smaller, leaner, more focused and better-performing federal government within 18% of GDP and Constitutional limits, we throw out next cycle.
Rinse and repeat, until the permanent professional political class is no more, and monied interests realize it's not worth spending big money to buy politicians who won't be in power for 20 years any more.
We should also limit spending on defense to less than 2% of GDP.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115295 May 28, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Any comment? Why yes, joe - the same comment I posted last time I had to pull your pants down around your ankles over this ridiculously lame post of yours -
You're lying with statistics (that is, the Obobo Truth Squad propaganda ministry you're dutifully shilling for is).
Here's the truth (again):
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_...
Federal sending was rock-steady under 20% of GDP until FY2009, when it exploded to OVER 25% of GDP, AND HAS REMAINED THERE THRUOUT OBOBO THE INCOMPETENT'S TERM.
Yes Bush properly is accountable for 4 months of that FY2009 spend - AND OBOBO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE REST OF IT - and more importantly he's 100% accountable for doing NOTHING to bring federal spending back down to a sustainable level of 18% of GDP or less. In fact, he's INCREASING federal spending as % of GDP in 2012!
So your cries of 'ALL HAIL OBOBO' for 'holding federal spending steady' during his term are ABSURD - that's like praising Capt. Joseph Smith for holding the flooding on the Titanic steady until she sank after hitting the iceberg.
Ridiculous.
Here's a more thorough fact-based debunking of the whole bullshyte 'Obobo is a fiscal hawk' meme:
http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the...
And, as usual, Krauthammer tells it like it really is:
"That is what makes it whopper of the year," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer says of a report that federal spending, under the Obama administration, has risen at the lowest pace in 60 years. "This is an unbelievable distortion of the truth. If you compare it to what was spent in the Bush years, particularly if you take out the emergency spending that the two administrations agreed on in the end -- the bailouts -- then you have an 8% increase, which is historic. You had it in 2009 alone, increases in the agencies of 20% and 50% in some of the agencies. Historically high and Obama increased it year after year."
"So what he is talking about really is a false impression. There was no intention ever by any administration of repeating the bailouts that you have to have in September, October, and November of 2008 and then the beginning of 2009. And if you count it in it's deliberately distorting the facts. And I'm not sure if there is anybody who believes it because it's so obvious, If an administration starts with the largest stimulus spending bill in galactic history, it obviously is not cost-cutting administration," he said.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/0...
So take this lie and stuff it, joe - don't make me pull your pants down a THIRD time.
First, the FY 09 budget was bush's. CBO profected over a $1 tril deficit before Obama even took office. Obama signed the last piece of the budget that year when the year was already half over. The major sepnding was signed by bush.

In a down economic cycle it normal for spending to go up and for revenues to fall. Go back and show us the last time that was not true. It happened under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and bush. The economy has not recovered so spending is still high and revenues are still down. What tax increases do you support to restore revenues to 18 - 19% of GDP? Until you identify that, why should anyone cut spending?

The last time spending was cut, the Republicans passed tax cuts making it a zero sum game. No more cuts until taxes are increased.
Teddy R

Anonymous Proxy

#115296 May 28, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong, the Healthcare Bill is a mandate for private insurance.
Yeah. An unconstitutional mandate.

Without the "opt-out" you were just advocating.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
But within that mandate Medicare is included along with Medicaid.
Now, how many people on Medicare and Medicaid are protesting to have them eliminated? Where are those that shun these programs in favor of true private insurance?
That is the lie of your side.
Not "my side," clearly.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama has not forgotten. How could he when he is campaigning? You can't keep the story straight, is he anti-business or pro-business? Is he anti-American people or pro-American people? If he is not working for business or people, who is he working for?
You make no sense at all. You're just as muddle-minded as he is. He's lost. Incompetent.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, the founding fathers were not anti-government. If they were, we would have none today. They tried minimalist government and it did not work.
IT DID NOT WORK??

Well, that will come as a great surprise to the greatest and most successful nation on earth.

Could you be any more ridiculous?
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Further, don't try the old argument that those on the left think the government is the answer to everything. It is not true. But clearly our healthcare insurance system is costly, inefficient and does not provide the care it should for the people of our nation. And it was private for a good number of years before the public sector attempted to fix those things that private health insurance did not.
If my information is wrong, provide evidence it is wrong.
ObamaScare does NOTHING to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of health care.

In true progressive fashion, it consumes 3000 pages merely to shift the cost onto SOMEONE ELSE.

It is a travesty.

REJECT its authors and proponenets at the polls.
REPEAL.
REPLACE it with true reform legislation.

Obama suxx. Hope for Change in 2012.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115297 May 28, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. An unconstitutional mandate.
Without the "opt-out" you were just advocating.
<quoted text>
Not "my side," clearly.
<quoted text>
You make no sense at all. You're just as muddle-minded as he is. He's lost. Incompetent.
<quoted text>
IT DID NOT WORK??
Well, that will come as a great surprise to the greatest and most successful nation on earth.
Could you be any more ridiculous?
<quoted text>
ObamaScare does NOTHING to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of health care.
In true progressive fashion, it consumes 3000 pages merely to shift the cost onto SOMEONE ELSE.
It is a travesty.
REJECT its authors and proponenets at the polls.
REPEAL.
REPLACE it with true reform legislation.
Obama suxx. Hope for Change in 2012.
No, it did not work. Articles of Confederation. Educate yourself.

The healthcare bill does both. It does nothing to decrease the overall cost of healthcare on this nation. It does work to reduce the cost individually by insuring more people (efficiency in numbers) and by allowing the uninsured (which get the most expensive treatment) to be insured opening up cheaper, earlier intervention.

The overall impact is less expensive healthcare for individuals with better overall health outcomes as a society.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115298 May 28, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Any comment? Why yes, joe -....
You are laughable in your partisan hack attempt to use right wing "psuedo-bloggers" to back up your transparent propaganda. And then to end on references to Krauthammer, another partisan hack is over the top hilarious.

You must be writing this crap for the other uninformed.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115299 May 28, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it did not work. Articles of Confederation.

You are correct - clear evidence the Founders DID want MINIMUM federal government, ceding only those functions and powers that were deomstrably necessary to its function.

With the Constitution, they got it about right.

[QUOTE who="okboston"]<q uoted text>
The healthcare bill ... does nothing to decrease the overall cost of healthcare on this nation.
Thank you. QED, and al we need to know to know ObamaScare is a disaster, an unconstitutional travesty that should soon be struck down either by the SCOTUS or the next Congress before its poisonous tentacles root in.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115300 May 28, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it did not work. Articles of Confederation.
You are correct - clear evidence the Founders DID want MINIMUM federal government, ceding only those functions and powers that were demonstrably necessary to its function.

With the Constitution, they got it about right.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The healthcare bill ... does nothing to decrease the overall cost of healthcare on this nation.
Thank you. Correct. QED, and all we need to know to know ObamaScare is a disaster, an unconstitutional travesty that should soon be struck down either by the SCOTUS or the next Congress before its poisonous tentacles root in.
Erica Hill

Rochester, MN

#115301 May 28, 2012
Obama said many things he couldnt live up to
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115302 May 28, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You are laughable in your partisan hack attempt to use right wing "psuedo-bloggers" to back up your transparent propaganda.
O rly?

Just what is a "pseudo blogger," joe? One who pretends to blog, but does not in reality? Makes then very hard to use as back-up if they are not actually blogging ... or is it that they are blogging, but not really blogging in you fevered mind? Please explain.

And if you can explain just what this thing you call a "pseudo-blogger" is, perhaps you can point specifically to WHICH "psedo-blogger" it is that I referenced in my previous post that you find so objectionable?

And while we're exploring your typical progressive ideological intolerance for dissenting views, why are you so bent about "transparent" propaganda? I do strive for transparency, it is true. But how can "propaganda" be "transparent," joe? Is it only transparent propaganda you hate? Or is it transparency in general when something simply runs counter to your progressive dogma?

Given your loyalty to the present Nixonian Obobo White House, I'm guessing that's what's really stuck in you grill, innit, joe?
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
And then to end on references to Krauthammer, another partisan hack is over the top hilarious.
Why, joe. Are you saying that to you, Dr. Krauthammer - physician, member of the Carter administration, speechwriter for Walter Mondale, Pulitzer Prize-winning commentator that the Financial Times has named "the most influential commentator in America," and that Bill Clinton has called "a brilliant man" - that to you, Dr. Krauthammer is what you consider to be "another partisan hack?"

And I'm "uninformed."

I think that tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take your criticism, joe.

More choom, joe - more choom.
uIDIotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#115303 May 28, 2012
Yo Teddyr
The American Legislatice Exchange Council is your kind of house, Yep!

WBHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAaaaaa
uIDIotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#115304 May 28, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
This is what happens when cousins marry ...
Tragic.
So u Kowtow cronyism, i will not let that happen , while u at the helm! BWHAHHAHAHAaaaaaa

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115305 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. QED, and al we need to know to know ObamaScare is a disaster, an unconstitutional travesty that should soon be struck down either by the SCOTUS or the next Congress before its poisonous tentacles root in.
How Republican of you to change my post.

You do realize that if the Healthcare Bill is UnConstitutional then Medicare is for the same reason? THis would mean that Medicare should be ended immediately doesn't it?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115306 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. QED, and al we need to know to know ObamaScare is a disaster, an unconstitutional travesty that should soon be struck down either by the SCOTUS or the next Congress before its poisonous tentacles root in.
Are you going to answer the points in my post or just going to cede that you did not know what your were talking about?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115307 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct - clear evidence the Founders DID want MINIMUM federal government, ceding only those functions and powers that were demonstrably necessary to its function.
With the Constitution, they got it about right.
<quoted text>
Thank you. Correct. QED, and all we need to know to know ObamaScare is a disaster, an unconstitutional travesty that should soon be struck down either by the SCOTUS or the next Congress before its poisonous tentacles root in.
There were two factions generally speaking. One that wanted limited government (the anti-federalists) and those that wanted more government (federalists). The former won the first argument the latter won the second based on the failure of the first. There are two groups of papers that were written for the purpose of gaining support, one for each side.

Further, the fact that the Constitution has not been updated to include things like the FBI, CDC, FDA, etc.... is a testiment that WE THE PEOPLE want a large, broad government based on general statements in the Constitution rather than a limited government based on specific statements that prohibit specific powers.

As far as I know, the TEA Party is against ammending the Constitution to incorporate these things (FBI, CDC, FDA, etc.) specifically and consequently discluding other things (healthcare) and as such are a bunch of spoiled adults simply crying for those things that they want.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115308 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
O rly?
Just what is a "pseudo blogger," joe? One who pretends to blog, but does not in reality? Makes then very hard to use as back-up if they are not actually blogging ... or is it that they are blogging, but not really blogging in you fevered mind? Please explain.
And if you can explain just what this thing you call a "pseudo-blogger" is, perhaps you can point specifically to WHICH "psedo-blogger" it is that I referenced in my previous post that you find so objectionable?
And while we're exploring your typical progressive ideological intolerance for dissenting views, why are you so bent about "transparent" propaganda? I do strive for transparency, it is true. But how can "propaganda" be "transparent," joe? Is it only transparent propaganda you hate? Or is it transparency in general when something simply runs counter to your progressive dogma?
Given your loyalty to the present Nixonian Obobo White House, I'm guessing that's what's really stuck in you grill, innit, joe?
<quoted text>
Why, joe. Are you saying that to you, Dr. Krauthammer - physician, member of the Carter administration, speechwriter for Walter Mondale, Pulitzer Prize-winning commentator that the Financial Times has named "the most influential commentator in America," and that Bill Clinton has called "a brilliant man" - that to you, Dr. Krauthammer is what you consider to be "another partisan hack?"
And I'm "uninformed."
I think that tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take your criticism, joe.
More choom, joe - more choom.
Pseudo Blogger = One who is paid to post a particular point of view not necessarilly their own.

Yes, Krauthammer was before and is now. Goes where the money is.

I won an editorial award from the Richmond Times (a conservative paper)for deconstructing one of Krautheimers editorials (literally tearing it up with facts.)
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115309 May 29, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
How Republican of you to change my post.
I didn't change your post. I excerpted from it, leaving out all the tedious rambling BS.

How angry progressive of you to lie.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that if the Healthcare Bill is UnConstitutional then Medicare is for the same reason?
Horsecrap. Medicare has no unconstitutional individual mandate.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115310 May 29, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to answer the points in my post or just going to cede that you did not know what your were talking about?
No. There were no intelligible points in your post, other than your confirmation that ObamaScare does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the US - it just shifts the burden to others.

The rest was frankly just so much Obobo apologist nonsense.
Teddy R

Muscat, Oman

#115311 May 29, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
There were two factions generally speaking. One that wanted limited government (the anti-federalists) and those that wanted more government (federalists).... Further, the fact that the Constitution has not been updated to include things like the FBI, CDC, FDA, etc.... is a testiment that WE THE PEOPLE want a large, broad government based on general statements in the Constitution rather than a limited government based on specific statements that prohibit specific powers.
The fact that the Constitution has not had to be amended to authorize things like the FBI, CDC, FDA, etc. is testament to nothing more than the broad flexibility of the Conmmerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, and the inventiveness of Big Government progressives in exploiting it over the decades.

The debate between the big- and small- federal government factions continues to this day among "We the People."
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I know,
Good of you to frankly acknowledge your ignorance up front ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>the TEA Party is against ammending the Constitution to incorporate these things (FBI, CDC, FDA, etc.) specifically and consequently discluding (sic) other things (healthcare) and as such are a bunch of spoiled adults simply crying for those things that they want.
"Discluding," OKB? Is that a word on Planet OKB?

Whatev ...

I don't give a rat's azz about the TEA Party or your ideologically twisted opinion of it - try it on some who does. Your ignorance of the TEA Party is overpowering and, it is clear, intentional.

I'm only mildly interested in exploring the abject stupidity of your "point" regarding 'amending the Constitution to incorporate FBI, CDC, FDA, etc. specifically.'

Why do you see that as an issue worthy of discussion, OKB? If these federal agencies and functions have existed for scores of years under the Constitution as written, why would it require amending? Are you just stirring the shyte - again?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115312 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't change your post. I excerpted from it, leaving out all the tedious rambling BS.
How angry progressive of you to lie.
<quoted text>
Horsecrap. Medicare has no unconstitutional individual mandate.
This was not in my original post Teddy. However, in your response to my post it magically appeared as if I wrote it:

"You are correct - clear evidence the Founders DID want MINIMUM federal government, ceding only those functions and powers that were deomstrably necessary to its function."

I also note how quickly those on the right are to claim someone is a liar. They do it on other threads as well so it is a general comment and not just based on you. Being more tolerant, I would like to think that you made a mistake and typed within the quote blocks when posting.

If you wanted to clear it up, the way to do that would be to admit to the mistake instead of attacking back.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115313 May 29, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There were no intelligible points in your post, other than your confirmation that ObamaScare does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the US - it just shifts the burden to others.
The rest was frankly just so much Obobo apologist nonsense.
You mean others who are not currently paying but are benefitting just the same.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Sgt Prepper 179,403
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min shinningelectr0n 1,126,841
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min hollerrat 159,039
GOP governors don't see 'Obamacare' going away 8 min rfirma 149
Dems want White House shakeup 18 min TEA 229
Race in America: Why are blacks being seen as r... (Jul '13) 20 min Sangelia 9,967
Unprecedented amount of 'dark money' fuels midt... 32 min Cordwainer Trout 11

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE