Dems Pledge To 'Create' 600,000 Jobs But Have Lost 15 Million...

[Ceasar]

How's that "Hope, Change, & Yes We Can!" working out for ya' there, COMRADE?

[Gengar]

Before election: I promise to create 3.5m jobs.

After being elected: I promise to create or save 3.5m jobs.

After being President for 6 months: I promise to create 600,000 temp jobs with the $787,000,000,000 I helped swindle from the American people.

Oh... but our Lefty posters here will call this "faux outrage", and demand we discuss the "real" issues.

[JerryN]

Yo, Mr O! How many jobs could the private sector create at $1M per?

I know YOU don't have any experience but can't you even hire someone who does?
Maybe if you'd stop ****ing off the business community, they'd step up and give you a clue?

[Ceasar]

Before election: I promise to create 3.5m jobs.

After being elected: I promise to create or save 3.5m jobs.

After being President for 6 months: I promise to create 600,000 temp jobs with the $787,000,000,000 I helped swindle from the American people.

Oh... but our Lefty posters here will call this "faux outrage", and demand we discuss the "real" issues.
Good post!

[Gengar]

TY! Now someone should do the math... $787,000,000,000 for 600,000 jobs... *cough*

[Ninjacorpse]

I am sure they created 600k jobs, may be government jobs but they did not specify...

[Mike88]

How's that "Hope, Change, & Yes We Can!" working out for ya' there, COMRADE?

But hey! Obama at least pulled the fascist move of siezing a company! That has libs jumping for joy like Michael Moore because leftwingers sure loves them some fascism!

[Ceasar]

TY! Now someone should do the math... $787,000,000,000 for 600,000 jobs... *cough*

I believe it works out to over a million per TEMPORARY job...

[blackcatrun]

I am sure they created 600k jobs, may be government jobs but they did not specify...

Because the jobs dont really exist. {they keep claiming they are "going to make" jobs}
None have happened or the news would have reported them to counter the over whelming conservative news that the jobs dont exist...except a few study groups to feed the money they stole from the American people nothing has really been done. The money is vanishing to some place but where? I have a feeling a lot of democrat coffers are being filled to run for office.

[Ceasar]

But hey! Obama at least pulled the fascist move of siezing a company! That has libs jumping for joy like Michael Moore because leftwingers sure loves them some fascism!

Right, we can't have anything not run by the all-powerfull government...

[Ninjacorpse]

Because the jobs dont really exist. {they keep claiming they are "going to make" jobs}
None have happened or the news would have reported them to counter the over whelming conservative news that the jobs dont exist...except a few study groups to feed the money they stole from the American people nothing has really been done. The money is vanishing to some place but where? I have a feeling a lot of democrat coffers are being filled to run for office.

I am sure they exist, you just need to ask how many private sector jobs have to be sacrificed to create a government job?

[George Walton]

Dems Pledge To 'Create' 600,000 Jobs But Have Lost 15 Million...

Obama saved $100 million but spent $3 trillion.

.

[Nashville]

I am sure they created 600k jobs, may be government jobs but they did not specify...

Must be looking at federal government jobs.

While private jobs are cratering federal govt. employment is booming, as well as their pay and benefits.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myo6dqSp8EE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstixblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F14% 2Fgovernment%2Dvs%2Dprivate%2Demployees%2Dtaxpayer %2Dalert%2F&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myo6dqSp8EE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstixblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F14% 2Fgovernment%2Dvs%2Dprivate%2Demployees%2Dtaxpayer %2Dalert%2F&feature=player_embedded)

[Ceasar]

Obama saved $100 million but spent $3 trillion.

.

Just like he 'saved' 600,000 jobs but lost 15 million doing it...

[bioya1]

He still has 3.5 years to reverse things.

In the meantime, lets focus on the record holder for slowest growth:


President George W. Bush will leave office on Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis from Buffalo Business First , a sister publication of Los Angeles Business from bizjournals.

The nation's job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush's eight years as president -- by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era.

...


Even worse if you look just at the private sector:


<H5>Private-sector employment



1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.50%
2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.34%
3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.66%
4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.54%
5. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.26%
6. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.16%
7. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.04%
8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.66%
9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.54%
10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.39%
11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.14%
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/01/19/daily3.html
</H5>
Remember, things could be worse. Imagine the pain if we had to suffer through 4 more years of the bungler.

[tom1468]

He still has 3 years to reverse things.

In the meantime, lets focus on the record holder for slowest growth:



Even worse if you look just at the private sector:

</H5>
Remember, things could be worse. Imagine the pain if we had to suffer through 4 more years of the bungler.

Sorry but Bush is a past problem, lets attempt to stop the current problem
Any power that Obama claims or steals will at some point be used by a republican
Don't just support him cause he is a member of your party
Party loyality is killing our country

[bioya1]

Sorry but Bush is a past problem, lets attempt to stop the current problem


The slide that GWBush and Greenspan helped accelerate is the current problem.


Any power that Obama claims or steals will at some point be used by a republican


Not sure about your point.


Don't just support him cause he is a member of your party


You are preaching to the choir. I am a registered GOP voter. While I have voted for dems from time to time, I started voting in 1976 and have never voted for a dem for President or for the House of Representatives.


Party loyality is killing our country


I have been saying that on this very board ever since I first got here. You should have heard the abuse I took for railing against the reckless GWBush policies that helped cause this train wreck.

[less right]

Just like he 'saved' 600,000 jobs but lost 15 million doing it...

Where do you get that 15 million number?

[Rurudyne]

How's that "Hope, Change, & Yes We Can!" working out for ya' there, COMRADE?
You're forgetting the tens of thousands of social worker jobs that will be easily needed to service the Obama Poor.

These will in turn spend money with merchants and so forth.

The Democrat version of trickle down economics. :mrgreen:

[Cutiepie]

You're forgetting the tens of thousands of social worker jobs that will be easily needed to service the Obama Poor.

These will in turn spend money with merchants and so forth.

The Democrat version of trickle down economics. :mrgreen:




Am I the only one seeing a problem that is about to happen. This garbage of turning in your clunker anywhere from $3500 to $4500 isn't good. Remember the whole thing of the housing market. Tons of people given loans that shouldn't have gotten loans and now I am seeing that is exactly what is going to happen with cars. Of course if things have gotten as tight as they claim then they will be stuck with buying a $3500 or a $4500 vehicle.

[bioya1]

Am I the only one seeing a problem that is about to happen. This garbage of turning in your clunker anywhere from $3500 to $4500 isn't good. Remember the whole thing of the housing market. Tons of people given loans that shouldn't have gotten loans and now I am seeing that is exactly what is going to happen with cars. Of course if things have gotten as tight as they claim then they will be stuck with buying a $3500 or a $4500 vehicle.

???

[Cutiepie]

???




you haven't heard about this? The government is going to give people who have clunkers they can't be older then 1984 anywhere from $3500 to $4500 in cash. So, either they get a brand new vehicle of their choice that gets better gas mileage or they buy another vehicle that is a clunker for the amount of money they were given. I am saying that it is opening up a pandora box of people getting car loans that they can't afford. But, if things have gotten as tight as I have heard for car loans and house loans then, they will be buying themselves another clunker for the amount the government paid them.

[Gengar]

He still has 3.5 years to reverse things.

In the meantime, lets focus on the record holder for slowest growth:



Even worse if you look just at the private sector:

</H5>
Remember, things could be worse. Imagine the pain if we had to suffer through 4 more years of the bungler.

Slowest growth? lol

What was the average unemployment for W's 8 years?

You can only get that number to go so low.

And what direction is Obama taking us? 48 states are as bad as they have been in more than a decade. Nothing like a downward spiral caused by spending $ we don't have to get us out of this mess.

[Rurudyne]

Am I the only one seeing a problem that is about to happen. This garbage of turning in your clunker anywhere from $3500 to $4500 isn't good. Remember the whole thing of the housing market. Tons of people given loans that shouldn't have gotten loans and now I am seeing that is exactly what is going to happen with cars. Of course if things have gotten as tight as they claim then they will be stuck with buying a $3500 or a $4500 vehicle.
Well, besides the fact that this scheme is illegal (there being NO delegated power for it), sure, I see your point.

But remember, it isn't about the cars: it's about the government's teat.

It isn't easy to teach a weaned adult to only accept baby food and be helplessly dependent on a self appointed parent.

[BigfootWRL]

Must be looking at federal government jobs.

While private jobs are cratering federal govt. employment is booming, as well as their pay and benefits.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myo6dqSp8EE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstixblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F14% 2Fgovernment%2Dvs%2Dprivate%2Demployees%2Dtaxpayer %2Dalert%2F&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myo6dqSp8EE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstixblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F14% 2Fgovernment%2Dvs%2Dprivate%2Demployees%2Dtaxpayer %2Dalert%2F&feature=player_embedded)

Guess Government workers don't have skin in the game?

[BigfootWRL]

He still has 3.5 years to reverse things.

In the meantime, lets focus on the record holder for slowest growth:



Even worse if you look just at the private sector:

</H5>
Remember, things could be worse. Imagine the pain if we had to suffer through 4 more years of the bungler.

So, let me get this right. Just because one Pres. might have done so and so, that makes it OK for the next to do it too? Stupid is as stupid does. :wall::wall::wall:

[bioya1]

Slowest growth? lol



The facts are what they are.

There was nothing that passed as real economic growth during GWBush's 8 years. We had a mirage fueled by the construction of a whole bunch of houses we didn't need and cannot afford.


What was the average unemployment for W's 8 years?


Who cares?

He left the economy in a shambles.


You can only get that number to go so low.


Low pretty well describes the state of the economy when GWBush and Greenspan got done with it.


And what direction is Obama taking us? 48 states are as bad as they have been in more than a decade. Nothing like a downward spiral caused by spending $ we don't have to get us out of this mess.


That downward spriral you describe started in 2001. Before that, we had surpluses.

[bioya1]

So, let me get this right. Just because one Pres. might have done so and so, that makes it OK for the next to do it too? Stupid is as stupid does.

I see I am dealing with someone who hasn't got any baseline knowledge in Economic theory at all. Since I am not willing to go about teaching remedial economics and you probably don't want to sit on the outside while the adults discuss it, might I suggest you go to your local Communtiy College and take an introductory Macroeconomic course. Focus on the difference in running deficits during severe recessions (like the Great GWBush/Greenspan Recession is) and running deficits when you are not in a severe recession (like the p[eriod 10/01-11/07).

[old guy]

Well, besides the fact that this scheme is illegal (there being NO delegated power for it), sure, I see your point.

But remember, it isn't about the cars: it's about the government's teat.

It isn't easy to teach a weaned adult to only accept baby food and be helplessly dependent on a self appointed parent.


once again its that whole general welfare clause and congress being able to decide what it thinks is in the genral welfare of the country ( If they say its in the general welfare its considered to be in the general welfare). That makes it legal. Dont like it? petition your congressmen and senators to amend the constitution

[Rurudyne]

once again its that whole general welfare clause and congress being able to decide what it thinks is in the genral welfare of the country ( If they say its in the general welfare its considered to be in the general welfare). That makes it legal. Dont like it? petition your congressmen and senators to amend the constitution
Incorrect.

The 1st clause of A1:S8 exist to enumerate a Power to Congress to levy certain forms of taxes.

Structurally the "to" in that clause IS NOT the same as a "To" elsewhere in Section 8. It is ordinary usage of the word.

The clause does not include a general authority to spend. There is NO general welfare clause.

Some additional points: if ANYTHING is permissible if it can be spuriously claimed to support the general welfare then also ANYTHING is permissible if it can be spuriously claimed to support the common defense.

The above is undeniable since your "clause" is equally a common defense clause too. That includes any level of a police state since when can a nation ever be well defended enough?

In addition to the above: it has been proven by now that the claim there is general authority to spend on account of this clause leads to NO powers being beyond the reach of the federal government.

It is the nature of amendments that the supercede specific considerations of what they are amended to. The 10th Amendment, to function properly, REQUIRES that powers not delegated (which is a specific action) are reserved to others besides the federal.

Any doctrine that prevents the proper operation of the 10th Amendment contravenes it and is flatly improper.

Even if Hamilton's misconstruction of the text is what had been intended the 10th must eliminate it.

There is no general welfare clause.

[Kegler300]

At a cost of $200 thousand per job created and $62 thousand per uninsured for healthcare, how much am I in for? Is anybody in the nObama Administration familiar with basic math and tiddly-winks?

[Rurudyne]

At a cost of $200 thousand per job created and $62 thousand per uninsured for healthcare, how much am I in for? Is anybody in the nObama Administration familiar with basic math and tiddly-winks?
I've tried this tactic. It won't work.

Mark Levin recently highlighted an analysis of Obamacare that reveals how we will spend a trillion dollars over the coming and will only manage to insure about 16 million uninsured people.

He rightly points out that there is no imaginable valid justification for such a waste of money if merely insuring a few million people were the goal.

Instead, it's all about government power. There is no price too high, no debt too great, to dissuade the left from the pursuit of federal power over persons and their lives.

[bioya1]

...

Mark Levin recently highlighted an analysis of Obamacare that reveals how we will spend a trillion dollars over the coming and will only manage to insure about 16 million uninsured people.

...

Can you share the link to the analysis?

[Rurudyne]

Can you share the link to the analysis?
Give me a few moments....

It's out of a CBO letter to Senator Kennedy. Here's a PDF of the letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Discussed in the June 16th show (You can hear that installment here: http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# ). Just click on the date and then right-click on the window that pops up to hear the mp3 of the show. It heads up the show so you don't have to wait through other topics.

[Kegler300]

Yes, the gold standard has been the CBO. However, it appears Obama is ignoring the CBO and going forward anyway. This is a Soviet-style power grab by a socialist regime that has taken over our government.

[bioya1]

Give me a few moments....

It's out of a CBO letter to Senator Kennedy. Here's a PDF of the letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Discussed in the June 16th show (You can hear that installment here: http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# ). Just click on the date and then right-click on the window that pops up to hear the mp3 of the show. It heads up the show so you don't have to wait through other topics.

Thank you.

[bioya1]

Yes, the gold standard has been the CBO.

Be careful with that. Remember CBO deficit projections from 2001?


However, it appears Obama is ignoring the CBO and going forward anyway.


There is nothing in that letter that says anything positive or negative about the proposal.


This is a Soviet-style power grab by a socialist regime that has taken over our government


I think you are overreaching pretty far with that. Our current system has failed miserably. While this plan is far from ideal, it is a huge improvement over the failed model we struggle with now.

[pennysworth56]

you haven't heard about this? The government is going to give people who have clunkers they can't be older then 1984 anywhere from $3500 to $4500 in cash. So, either they get a brand new vehicle of their choice that gets better gas mileage or they buy another vehicle that is a clunker for the amount of money they were given. I am saying that it is opening up a pandora box of people getting car loans that they can't afford. But, if things have gotten as tight as I have heard for car loans and house loans then, they will be buying themselves another clunker for the amount the government paid them.

The cars have to have better gas mileage than the one they are trading in to get the money.

penny

[Billy_Bob]

How's that "Hope, Change, & Yes We Can!" working out for ya' there, COMRADE?

I beleive the Indians warned Custer about speaking with forked tongue... It didn't work well for Custer and I suspect that it will not work well for Obama...

Were LISTENING TO EVERY WORD!

[coodaddy]

Today, as I was sitting at work, I pondered how many lives I'd saved. I drove to work, 33 miles one-way and didn't run anyone off the road or run anyone over on the sidewalks or parking lots. I'll bet I saved 1,000 lives today. I can prove this, but our pathetic President cannot prove anything that comes out of his lying trap, including this claim of saving or creating jobs.

[Bigscore1]

you haven't heard about this? The government is going to give people who have clunkers they can't be older then 1984 anywhere from $3500 to $4500 in cash. So, either they get a brand new vehicle of their choice that gets better gas mileage or they buy another vehicle that is a clunker for the amount of money they were given. I am saying that it is opening up a pandora box of people getting car loans that they can't afford. But, if things have gotten as tight as I have heard for car loans and house loans then, they will be buying themselves another clunker for the amount the government paid them.
There is some serious misinformation in this post.

The bill applies to purchasing new vehicles only.