First Obama tells us his stimulus would create/save jobs. Then Biden tells us 8,000,000 jobs aren't coming back (does anyone remember how McC got his balls busted when he said the jobs we lost to other countries aren't coming back?) Now I guess Obama's telling us we should be happy the unemployment number isn't higher. As people start to bust Obama's balls on this subject I'm sure he'll say we should be happy that the number isn't 20%, 25%, 30% or what ever number he pulls out of his sphincter.

There isn't an honest bone in this man's body, I truly believe that.

Quote:President Obama told a Wisconsin town hall today that the unemployment rate is lower than it would be if the Recovery Act (the stimulus) had not passed.

Obama told the audience “unemployment's at 9.6%." That is above the 8% the administration predicted with the stimulus implemented.

“Yes, but it's not 12 or 13 or 15," Obama said defending his policy.

The economy "recovered more than people expected last year," he added.

"Things aren't as bad as they could have been, this could have been a catastrophe, in that sense it [the stimulus] worked," Obama claimed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...rcent.html

(06-30-2010 10:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  First Obama tells us his stimulus would create/save jobs. Then Biden tells us 8,000,000 jobs aren't coming back (does anyone remember how McC got his balls busted when he said the jobs we lost to other countries aren't coming back?) Now I guess Obama's telling us we should be happy the unemployment number isn't higher. As people start to bust Obama's balls on this subject I'm sure he'll say we should be happy that the number isn't 20%, 25%, 30% or what ever number he pulls out of his sphincter.

There isn't an honest bone in this man's body, I truly believe that.

Actually he is scarily honest.

Virtually permanent unemployment benefits. Free medical care. Food stamps. Whatever other benefits. Who needs a job? And Obama has a permanent group of constituents all just recently chipped from the ranks of the productive.

We had better take the government away from these people while we are still able.

Obama: For Unemployment to stay under 8%, we must pass my $870 Billion stimulus plan.

(06-30-2010 10:46 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Obama: For Unemployment to stay under 8%, we must pass my $870 Billion stimulus plan.

Too Bad nobody in the MSM is not calling him on that garbage. His "Stimulus Plan" was a crock of crud created by his buddies at the Tides Foundation. The "Real Unemployment" is more like 13%, if not more.

Who did it benefit from the "Obama Stimulus Plan"?? What did it "stimulate"??

Name it.. (and a new refrigerator box for RobertN doesn't count).

(06-30-2010 10:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  First Obama tells us his stimulus would create/save jobs. Then Biden tells us 8,000,000 jobs aren't coming back (does anyone remember how McC got his balls busted when he said the jobs we lost to other countries aren't coming back?) Now I guess Obama's telling us we should be happy the unemployment number isn't higher. As people start to bust Obama's balls on this subject I'm sure he'll say we should be happy that the number isn't 20%, 25%, 30% or what ever number he pulls out of his sphincter.

There isn't an honest bone in this man's body, I truly believe that.

Quote:President Obama told a Wisconsin town hall today that the unemployment rate is lower than it would be if the Recovery Act (the stimulus) had not passed.

Obama told the audience “unemployment's at 9.6%." That is above the 8% the administration predicted with the stimulus implemented.

“Yes, but it's not 12 or 13 or 15," Obama said defending his policy.

The economy "recovered more than people expected last year," he added.

"Things aren't as bad as they could have been, this could have been a catastrophe, in that sense it [the stimulus] worked," Obama claimed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...rcent.html

Well, if we had a rightwing nut in office, it would have been 12-15%(possibly higher) because you guys would have let GM and Chrysler fail. Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

(07-01-2010 12:43 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 10:46 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Obama: For Unemployment to stay under 8%, we must pass my $870 Billion stimulus plan.

Too Bad nobody in the MSM is not calling him on that garbage. His "Stimulus Plan" was a crock of crud created by his buddies at the Tides Foundation. The "Real Unemployment" is more like 13%, if not more.

Who did it benefit from the "Obama Stimulus Plan"?? What did it "stimulate"??

Name it.. (and a new refrigerator box for RobertN doesn't count).

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationce...hartC.aspx

(07-01-2010 03:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, if we had a rightwing nut in office, it would have been 12-15%(possibly higher) because you guys would have let GM and Chrysler fail. Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

Had GM and Chrysler "failed," there would not have been a massive loss of jobs. You fail to understand how bankruptcy works. They would have filed bankruptcy one day and opened for business the next, continuing to make the same number of cars with the same employees. Of course, once they shed the cushy featherbedded union contracts, some employees might have quit rather than actually have to do some work. But shedding those contracts would also have enabled them to compete on an even playing field again. In particular, they would be able to make profitably the kinds of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that we now desperately need. This would enable them to start growing again, ultimately employing more people.

As for the bank bailout, there would be just as many bank jobs (except maybe some "rich" executive types, which you shouldn't lament) without it. The jobs it was supposed to "create or save" were to come from non-banks, by getting lending restarted. But guess what, banks aren't lending now, with the bailout. So the bailout has saved a few Wall Street fat cats, without doing anything to help Main Street. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would support something like that.

(07-01-2010 03:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

TARP was done under Bush you ****!ng idiot.

When a business screws up, it should pay for it. When a business fails it leaves a gap in the economy for other smaller, more innovative businesses to fill. When a GIANT business fails it leaves a GIANT hole which can be filled by a LARGE number of business. This actually creates MORE jobs than were initially lost and allows for innovation in the industry.

GM, Chevrolet, Banks, should have been allowed to fail. They screwed up. They deserved to fall. This would have created a gap in the market, which would be filled by other companies, creating as many or more jobs than lost.

(07-01-2010 04:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-01-2010 03:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, if we had a rightwing nut in office, it would have been 12-15%(possibly higher) because you guys would have let GM and Chrysler fail. Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

Had GM and Chrysler "failed," there would not have been a massive loss of jobs. You fail to understand how bankruptcy works. They would have filed bankruptcy one day and opened for business the next, continuing to make the same number of cars with the same employees. Of course, once they shed the cushy featherbedded union contracts, some employees might have quit rather than actually have to do some work. But shedding those contracts would also have enabled them to compete on an even playing field again. In particular, they would be able to make profitably the kinds of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that we now desperately need. This would enable them to start growing again, ultimately employing more people.

As for the bank bailout, there would be just as many bank jobs (except maybe some "rich" executive types, which you shouldn't lament) without it. The jobs it was supposed to "create or save" were to come from non-banks, by getting lending restarted. But guess what, banks aren't lending now, with the bailout. So the bailout has saved a few Wall Street fat cats, without doing anything to help Main Street. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would support something like that.

why are you wasting your time?

(07-01-2010 11:07 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(07-01-2010 04:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-01-2010 03:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, if we had a rightwing nut in office, it would have been 12-15%(possibly higher) because you guys would have let GM and Chrysler fail. Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

Had GM and Chrysler "failed," there would not have been a massive loss of jobs. You fail to understand how bankruptcy works. They would have filed bankruptcy one day and opened for business the next, continuing to make the same number of cars with the same employees. Of course, once they shed the cushy featherbedded union contracts, some employees might have quit rather than actually have to do some work. But shedding those contracts would also have enabled them to compete on an even playing field again. In particular, they would be able to make profitably the kinds of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that we now desperately need. This would enable them to start growing again, ultimately employing more people.

As for the bank bailout, there would be just as many bank jobs (except maybe some "rich" executive types, which you shouldn't lament) without it. The jobs it was supposed to "create or save" were to come from non-banks, by getting lending restarted. But guess what, banks aren't lending now, with the bailout. So the bailout has saved a few Wall Street fat cats, without doing anything to help Main Street. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would support something like that.

why are you wasting your time?

If you must respond to Roberta, you should never use more words in response than he does in his post. Any more effort and it's like talking to yourself.

(07-01-2010 04:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-01-2010 03:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, if we had a rightwing nut in office, it would have been 12-15%(possibly higher) because you guys would have let GM and Chrysler fail. Not to mention how many jobs were saved by the bank bail out which the righties wouldn't have done.

Had GM and Chrysler "failed," there would not have been a massive loss of jobs. You fail to understand how bankruptcy works. They would have filed bankruptcy one day and opened for business the next, continuing to make the same number of cars with the same employees. Of course, once they shed the cushy featherbedded union contracts, some employees might have quit rather than actually have to do some work. But shedding those contracts would also have enabled them to compete on an even playing field again. In particular, they would be able to make profitably the kinds of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that we now desperately need. This would enable them to start growing again, ultimately employing more people.

As for the bank bailout, there would be just as many bank jobs (except maybe some "rich" executive types, which you shouldn't lament) without it. The jobs it was supposed to "create or save" were to come from non-banks, by getting lending restarted. But guess what, banks aren't lending now, with the bailout. So the bailout has saved a few Wall Street fat cats, without doing anything to help Main Street. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would support something like that.

You are assuming that the car companies would go through reorganization. As for banks, if the big banks failed there would have been many lower level employees who would lose their jobs and not all(or most) would be able to get another job at another bank. You are assuming that since customers would go to other banks that other banks would start hiring former banking employees massively.

I'm always amazed at how little Roberta knows about basic economics. His last tripe leaves me believing he shouldn't operate anything with an engine bigger than a 9V battery.

(07-02-2010 12:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm always amazed at how little Roberta knows about basic economics. His last tripe leaves me believing he shouldn't operate anything with an engine bigger than a 9V battery.

What I know about economics is from living in the real world not reading some rightwing BS from some economics textbook.

(07-02-2010 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 12:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm always amazed at how little Roberta knows about basic economics. His last tripe leaves me believing he shouldn't operate anything with an engine bigger than a 9V battery.

What I know about economics is from living in the real world not reading some rightwing BS from some economics textbook.

How could you vote for Obama then? He's all academic. He's never lived in the real world or held a real job. So what in the hell does he know about economics?

Robert, you live in the real world of liberal economics. That's what you have in Illinois. So, either stop bitching about the economy or become a conservative. The **** you pimp, liberal economics, is an abject failure as can be seen in liberal states and cities ACROSS the nation.

Meanwhile, my little conservative enclave down here in the CSRA is growing by leaps and bounds. The entire South is either thriving or sustaining, BP victims aside. You can't blame Republicans on your problems. A) You don't vote for'em. B) They're not in power in the Federal Government. C) They aren't in power in your state. D) They aren't in power in your city. It's akin to black liberals bitching at conservatives about the regression of their culture. Hey, you haven't voted for Republicans in 40 years. Might want to redirect your damn fire.

(07-02-2010 01:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Robert, you live in the real world of liberal economics. That's what you have in Illinois. So, either stop bitching about the economy or become a conservative. The **** you pimp, liberal economics, is an abject failure as can be seen in liberal states and cities ACROSS the nation.

Meanwhile, my little conservative enclave down here in the CSRA is growing by leaps and bounds. The entire South is either thriving or sustaining, BP victims aside. You can't blame Republicans on your problems. A) You don't vote for'em. B) They're not in power in the Federal Government. C) They aren't in power in your state. D) They aren't in power in your city. It's akin to black liberals bitching at conservatives about the regression of their culture. Hey, you haven't voted for Republicans in 40 years. Might want to redirect your damn fire.

The CSRA won't be sustaining or thriving as much when the Income Tax Hikes, Health Care Fees, Cap and Tax, and the "God knows what else Tax" kicks in during 2011.

The Republicans might stop any more damage by taking the House, but repeal of some of this past legislative insanity won't happen because they won't have enough votes to over ride President Numbnut's Veto.

(07-01-2010 03:37 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-01-2010 12:43 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 10:46 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Obama: For Unemployment to stay under 8%, we must pass my $870 Billion stimulus plan.

Too Bad nobody in the MSM is not calling him on that garbage. His "Stimulus Plan" was a crock of crud created by his buddies at the Tides Foundation. The "Real Unemployment" is more like 13%, if not more.

Who did it benefit from the "Obama Stimulus Plan"?? What did it "stimulate"??

Name it.. (and a new refrigerator box for RobertN doesn't count).

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationce...hartC.aspx

Hey Robert- many of those projects were never started because GDOT didn't have the additional funds to finish them. They went to complete existing projects on I-20, I-75 and I- 85. No new jobs were created.