Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

su par wrote:

Obama, just like Bush and just like Clinton, and just like.......is a stooge to world government. He does not have to say to many words about it. Others around him do the tasks. During the G8 meeting there were at least two people of importance that made statements about world government. Gore and the president of Russia with a proposed world government coin. Obama was there also! We are being blended in. We have been slowly destroyed over several decades. This economy is only going to get worse. And more and more of us will fall into a world government mantra believing it is better for us. And mistaking that we will be free.

This is part of the problem. People don't understand the difference between "being a world economy/government" and "participating in a world economy/government".

The right answer is for each society to have their own governments and industries and trade independently on an open market, not for us to go down this path of "all for one and one for all". We have an example of how that doesn't work here at home. Just look at our states. We don't even follow the same path and we are supposedly of the same culture. How in the hell are we supposed to operate with one set of rules with a country/culture nothing like ours? Also, I don't want to join a league of nations as the richest nation having to support everyone else.

Has anyone else read about the first stimulus cost per tax payer? The number is staggering. It costs each tax payer $10,000. How much more would the economy have been stimulated if you, your wife, and 2 kids had received a check for $20k? How many debts would have been payed, new cars bought, college funds setup, durable goods purchased, TV's, Computers, etc.?

$500,000 in the government's hands is less stimulus than $5,000 in the hands of a citizen.

IMHO - it's all about Obummer's ego - he has to shove all of his plans down American's throat, and quickly, before they've had too much and start to throw up. Otherwise, he will never be able to fully claim his title of "Savior of the world" while continuing to brainwash and play to the lib/dem base which are the clueless who continue to suck government dry.(and unfortunately, the slight majority who elected Obummer in the first place - they just continue to live irresponsibly by continuing to overmultiply and take over the school system and indoctrinate as many as they possibly can to the liberal agenda) Most rational people would focus on the immediate needs of the people, but Obummer is so narcissistic, he can't see beyond his own needs of becoming whatever image of himself that he has built up in his own mind.

James_TX wrote:

<quoted text>
This is part of the problem. People don't understand the difference between "being a world economy/government" and "participating in a world economy/government".
The right answer is for each society to have their own governments and industries and trade independently on an open market, not for us to go down this path of "all for one and one for all". We have an example of how that doesn't work here at home. Just look at our states. We don't even follow the same path and we are supposedly of the same culture. How in the hell are we supposed to operate with one set of rules with a country/culture nothing like ours? Also, I don't want to join a league of nations as the richest nation having to support everyone else.

Just like the Nafta Superhighway during the Bush administration.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...

Here We Go Again wrote:

IMHO - it's all about Obummer's ego - he has to shove all of his plans down American's throat, and quickly, before they've had too much and start to throw up. Otherwise, he will never be able to fully claim his title of "Savior of the world" while continuing to brainwash and play to the lib/dem base which are the clueless who continue to suck government dry.(and unfortunately, the slight majority who elected Obummer in the first place - they just continue to live irresponsibly by continuing to overmultiply and take over the school system and indoctrinate as many as they possibly can to the liberal agenda) Most rational people would focus on the immediate needs of the people, but Obummer is so narcissistic, he can't see beyond his own needs of becoming whatever image of himself that he has built up in his own mind.

And Bush did the same. We just had to have 8 years of tax cuts and borrowed for that with no consideration of the deficits. Oh that was supposed to solve the problem. And we just had to go to war and we borrowed for that. And we had to stay the course.

We are where we are.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
And Bush did the same. We just had to have 8 years of tax cuts and borrowed for that with no consideration of the deficits. Oh that was supposed to solve the problem. And we just had to go to war and we borrowed for that. And we had to stay the course.
We are where we are.

we are where we are = not attacked since 9/11/2001

Here We Go Again wrote:

<quoted text> we are where we are = not attacked since 9/11/2001

And after years of quagmire, a military stretched thin, needless deaths, Iran as the new leader in the MIddle East, the Taliban regained control of parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. We are still in Iraq and after years of neglect we are trying to regain Afghanistan, and still have to deal with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden (you know the guy that attacked us) in Pakistan-a nuclear country.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
And after years of quagmire, a military stretched thin, needless deaths, Iran as the new leader in the MIddle East, the Taliban regained control of parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. We are still in Iraq and after years of neglect we are trying to regain Afghanistan, and still have to deal with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden (you know the guy that attacked us) in Pakistan-a nuclear country.

and your alternative is to roll over and play dead - or BE dead - take your pick

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
And Bush did the same. We just had to have 8 years of tax cuts and borrowed for that with no consideration of the deficits. Oh that was supposed to solve the problem. And we just had to go to war and we borrowed for that. And we had to stay the course.
We are where we are.

This threads incessant ranting about its Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Rebublican's fault, Dems fault, conservatives fault, liberals fault is tedious and unproductive. The ALL have failed us. ALL OF THEM! It isn't about party or ideology, its about money, plain and simple. The vast majority of our politicians are self-serving weasles interested in their cushy careers, great benefits, status, power, etc., etc. And whoever has the money to get them re-elected, whether it be their party, special interests, etc., that is who they represent, not the American public.

Until we wake up to the fact that they are ALL to blame, the only argument here is who is actually worse. And given the dismal performance of both sides, that is a difficult debate to win. Everybody here has a endless list of failures against the party the like least.

They are ALL selling us down the river and all we can do is bicker and argue about who is doing it faster.

The GOP is in the state it is in because their constituents know that Bush and the party failed them. The sooner the Dems wake up to the same reality the better so the country can get on to the business of fixing its problems, because it simply isn't happening.

Here We Go Again wrote:

<quoted text> and your alternative is to roll over and play dead - or BE dead - take your pick

No the fact remains is that Bush did not talk to Bob Gates, James Baker, Brent Scrowcroft, or his father. Bush listened to the neocons and went to Iraq when our fight was in Afghanistan. And Bush had two wars without paying for them and with only 170,000 troops. What we see today is a total mess.

KDB123 wrote:

<quoted text>
This threads incessant ranting about its Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Rebublican's fault, Dems fault, conservatives fault, liberals fault is tedious and unproductive. The ALL have failed us. ALL OF THEM! It isn't about party or ideology, its about money, plain and simple. The vast majority of our politicians are self-serving weasles interested in their cushy careers, great benefits, status, power, etc., etc. And whoever has the money to get them re-elected, whether it be their party, special interests, etc., that is who they represent, not the American public.
Until we wake up to the fact that they are ALL to blame, the only argument here is who is actually worse. And given the dismal performance of both sides, that is a difficult debate to win. Everybody here has a endless list of failures against the party the like least.
They are ALL selling us down the river and all we can do is bicker and argue about who is doing it faster.
The GOP is in the state it is in because their constituents know that Bush and the party failed them. The sooner the Dems wake up to the same reality the better so the country can get on to the business of fixing its problems, because it simply isn't happening.

You are right about the money. But it is also about power and ideology. We have seen ideology from both side. We have seen ideology for 8 years of neoconism, laissez-faire, corporatism, militarism, and religion. And stay the course. And Obama, I don't know where he is at at the moment. He, or any president has to deal with this recession and there is no easy way out of this. It is unfortunate that it has to be this way.

It will take many months and years to get out of this mess. So all the talk of the unemployment situation on the short term means nothing. We know that unemployment will go to double digits. The question is how we got here and how do we get out of it for the long term.

I have said all along that you have to invest in your country-in which we have not. You have to invest in your people-in which we have not. And invest in the future-and we have not. We are where we are.

I don't see anything wrong with believing in corporations (those people who create jobs), the military (those people who protect our bu!!s) or most of all GOD - now I understand why we are so different.

Here We Go Again wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with believing in corporations (those people who create jobs), the military (those people who protect our bu!!s) or most of all GOD - now I understand why we are so different.

I have nothing wrong with corporations. What we do know in this globalized world is the pressure will be on the middle class. We cannot compete with third world countries unless we lower our wage and do away with benefits. We have seen many companies go overseas, and it is understandable. However, we will need substitutions for the loss of jobs. I don't know what that is but we have to invest in our country, in our people, and in the future.

The military was misused by Bush. First, by going to Iraq and not paying attention in going after Osama Bin Laden. Secondly, Bush did not pay for the war. And thirdly, he stretched the military thin for two wars. While, I do not blame the military, I do blame the president in using the military in such a way. And many soldiers died needlessly on the misuse of the military.

God has his place. We have hundreds of churches. Religion should not be used as a policy of our country. Unless you want to see us turn into Saudi Arabia. The president is Commander-in-chief and president of our country. He is not the pope. The pope has his job and the president his. On social issues, it is very easy and that is leave it up to the states. Bush banned most of the research on embryonic stem cell research, essentially stopping most of that science in this country. We fell behind Singapore in science and they took some of our scientists. Now you would think in this day in age with everyone talking about jobs, why in the world do you use religion to stop progress.

Now when you go by an ideology, these areas get abused. We have seen the neglect of our country while a president preaches that everything is okay in his world, when in the real world our economy was run on a sham. And so, we are where we are.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
I have said all along that you have to invest in your country-in which we have not. You have to invest in your people-in which we have not. And invest in the future-and we have not. We are where we are.

Your statement is fine in the abstract, but leaves a lot of real world questions. You never say who "we" is, which I suspect you mean the government.

Should we invest in heavy industry? Maybe for the nonunion automakers because the domestic car makers are shinking by about 70% so they don't need it. But the nonunion automaker plants seem to be doing just fine without the governments help. So, probably no investments needed for them.

Education? We already spend hundreds of billions on education per year. And besides, the long term outlook for jobs in the country is dim, so what exactly are we educating people to do?

Invest in commerical services? Like banks and insurance companies. We just got done sending trillions to those companies. Doesn't seem to have helped much, credit is still very difficult to get.

Invest is so called "Green Technology"? Nice in theory. But Green Technology is kind of like investing in embryonic stem cells research. Each cost a lot of money and the pay off is decades away, if at all.

Invest in small businesses? What kind of investments? The only thing that really helps small business are tax breaks, not free money with a lot of strings on it from the government. And with the Democrats in control of the government, there is not a chance of any tax breaks for small business.

Invest in Health Care? Having a health population is good thing, but if there are no jobs, or lesser paying jobs, people will not eat as well and that alone with be very unhealthy in itself. Also, good health care doesn't really produce anything.

Invest in government? Really now, how much more money do we need to send to Uncle Sam?

And all of this is pie-in-the-sky thinking anyway. Until jobs come back, and they won't in the current environment, the tax revenues needed for the investments will not be there.
You could increase taxes on the "rich" to try and get the capital you need for these investments, but that would further erode the jobs, and the tax revenues, in the future.

So what exactly do you want to invest in?

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like the Nafta Superhighway during the Bush administration.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...

You mean the PROPOSED superhighway -- it has not passed.

Clinton signed NAFTA. And Obama opposes it but won't repeal it.

From:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story...

Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it.

"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.

"Yesterday [Saturday],[Clinton] said NAFTA was 'negotiated' by the first President Bush, not by her husband," Obama said today. "But let's be clear: It was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Sen. Clinton called NAFTA one of Bill's successes."

Obama also relayed to the small crowd at the National Gypsum plant a number of quotes from Clinton he said indicated she had praised the trade agreement -- including one from 2004, when she allegedly said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

Saturday, Clinton took issue with an Obama mailer being distributed in the Buckeye State that included a quote implying that Clinton had described NAFTA as "a boon" to the economy.

The quote actually was from New York Newsday, which had characterized Clinton's views as considering NAFTA a boon though Clinton herself had never made such a remark.

Clinton biographers Sally Bedell Smith and Carl Bernstein have reported that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA behind the scenes. But it might prove difficult for her to argue that she opposed a trade deal her husband made a legislative priority, not to mention one she has praised in the past.

Why don't we just blow the whole thing up and that will save so much bullshit.

right on Jim! we keep throwing money at problems without solving the underlying problems. The education system is BROKEN, and more money makes the problems worse, not better.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right about the money. But it is also about power and ideology. We have seen ideology from both side. We have seen ideology for 8 years of neoconism, laissez-faire, corporatism, militarism, and religion. And stay the course. And Obama, I don't know where he is at at the moment. He, or any president has to deal with this recession and there is no easy way out of this. It is unfortunate that it has to be this way.
It will take many months and years to get out of this mess. So all the talk of the unemployment situation on the short term means nothing. We know that unemployment will go to double digits. The question is how we got here and how do we get out of it for the long term.
I have said all along that you have to invest in your country-in which we have not. You have to invest in your people-in which we have not. And invest in the future-and we have not. We are where we are.

You don't know where Obama is at at the moment?!!

Allow me to tell you.

If Obama wanted to create "real" employment (non-government, net long-term employment) HE WOULD HAVE DONE SO.

The $787 billion "shamulus", the $410 billion omnibus, and the $3.5 trillion budget would have actually done something to support business, relax credit, lower payroll, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and instill confidence in our economy and the direction of our country.

But no, he can't fulfill, er ram through his fascist ideological agenda of government control -- over insurance, banking, automotive, healthcare, and energy -- without a prolonged crisis.

So the more chaos, fear, and uncertainty, the more likely his warped visionary agenda for America will succeed.

Obama the community activist doesn't seek to govern, he seeks to control. And he's not letting this crisis go to waste.

He needs healthcare and cap-trade passed pronto, so that he can then do something nominally positive in time for the 2010 congressional elections.

It's ALL POLITICS ALL THE TIME for the Obamunist. His priorities are himself, his agenda, and his party. For the fascist-community-activist-in- chief, America is just an object to be terra-formed.

Elk Meat wrote:

Question??????????
What happened to the 3.5 million he promised.
Guess the liars club has grown a bit this YEAR.

Obama never lies.

The jobs he promised are being created in China where they reject the stupid cap and trade energy tax for their economy.

Taxpayer Jim wrote:

<quoted text>

So what exactly do you want to invest in?

Both union and non union plants have closed down in communities. We have globalization. And that means the pressure will be on companies and the middle class to reduce wages. We cannot compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians. What we have witnessed in 30 years the Japanese taking most of our steel, our textiles, our electronics, and our autos. In 10 to 20 years you will see the Chinese do the same. It is with cheap labor, and then market share, and then ruination of our companies and the cities and towns that rely on them.

We need to invest in areas where jobs won't go overseas. That may be energy independence, high speed rail (within reason). In infrastructure how about 35 billion dollars needed for a new air traffic control system. That will create more direct routes and save airlines more in fuel. It would also help in commerce and tourism as you can have more aircraft in the air.

You will need mandatory vocational training as for decades people either went to college or to the factory. We cannot rely on factories. So those days are gone. Vocational training can be anything and can be controlled by local communities on what they want to teach. A guest on C-span said they are doing this in New Jersey. I am sure many people realize this already. Anyway, here is a Hudson Institute report.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm...

We live in a globalized world and we have to be an educated society.

And investing in the future. And that is everything from embryonic stem cell research to all areas of research and development and innovation.

As we get rid of the old, we have to replace it with the new. The problem we have is that we nothing new to go to. Especially in the Midwest. You have talked about small business, but you cannot have a small business in communities with factories closed. The restaurants are closing and communities are struggling. And what kind of widgets can we make that can't be done in China.

Now, everything is long term. This should have been done years ago. But know all we heard is that "free trade is good" and at the same time we saw the factories close. So it was total ignorance out of Washington. Economics is a game of give and take. You do one thing and you have to compensate in some way. Now you can wait around and do nothing as we have seen. And if that is the case then you will have more bailouts of cities and more welfare.

And you say "Until jobs come back, and they won't in the current environment, the tax revenues needed for the investments will not be there."

Well, it goes back to Bush. Because Bush did not have the tax revenues for his tax cuts and for his war. It was all borrowed money. So every other problem was neglected. Now we have an infrastructure to take care of. We cannot keep neglecting our country, our people, and what happens in the future. Those tax cuts was for the here and now. It did nothing for the future. And it never addressed our long term problems.