Obama touts stimulus gains despite economic woes
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 26 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
61 Comments
Login to comment
0
Badsey
+so far it seems we have 25 new police jobs.
-651,000 jobs lost in Feb.
How much are we spending?
0
sailwind
Mr. Mayor, How are you planning to pay their salaries after the taxpayer money runs out?
Obama is highlighting this as 'Job Creation'?
They're looking for real jobs that will be there in the future then temp positions payed by Uncle Sugar I'd reckon.
0
TexasAggie
25 new police jobs vs. 651,000 jobs lost in Feb.
heckuvajob, Obama.
0
adaydream
The jobs that were lost were jobs already slated to be cut due to the slowdown in the economy. Howerever, right now some places are letting go through one door to jobs lost, due to contracts lost. And hiring through another door due to jobs being created due to the stimulus.
It'll take time, but in a couple of months you'll see job losses slowing down. < :-)
0
bebert
Don't worry, Obama is creating new agencies and government spending that will create hundreds of thousands of government jobs. Follow this to its logical end, eventually every American will be working for the government, just like those other economic miracles: North Korea and Cuba.
0
Taka313
We have two posters on this thread who seems to believe that all 651,000 jobs lost in February are the fault of a president in office less than one month and another who seems to believe that buying the city of Columbus a year of breathing room to find more room in the budget for law enforcement is not a good thing, all because it came from President Obama.
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Don't wait for the Christmas rush (or even the inauguration in most cases), get your start today.
Taka
0
TheQuestion
You have no idea how terrifying that statement is.
I don't believe Obama is a socialist, I believe that he is doing what he thinks is right and will help america recover its proper place as a world leader. But he is playing a very dangerous game that has no middle ground, the policies that he is putting forward will either set the U.S on the straight and narrow or it will send the U.S and the world at large into an economic tailspin. I believe the latter is the more likely outcome, but then I am also a pessimist in anything that concerns the toxic mixing of politics and economics. I honestly hope I'm wrong. The U.S will get back to its free market roots I only hope it doesn't take a true catastrophy for us to get there.
0
sailwind
Change 'buying' to 'Subsidizing' in your qoute and finding more room in the budget next year means either a tax hike or cut back in another program, somebody is gonna pay for this down the road. Nothing is free in life.
I do view subsidizing as real bad policy, causes people to be even more dependent on the Government, I do view that as a bad thing. Taka, also I don't froth at mouth at the mere mention of Obama's name, my issue is with his economic policy, his Foreign policy I have no disagreements on at all. He is doing a great job in that department, his economic program, well like I said above isn't job creation and is only going to hurt Colombus in the long run.
0
WilliB
The Obama recession is on.
0
buddha4brains
What astounds me is the economic health of America 8 years ago. Even with a recession coming Bush had room to make a number of choices, such was the strength and depth of the American economy. Of course the economy Obama inherited lacks the depth, breadth and strength of 8 years ago and therefore the choices he has to address the problems.
If the capitalists wannabes on this board don't like Obama's remedies, then they should have held their capitalist leaders to account. But they didn't because it was much easier to talk the talk and think it was the walk.
0
norinrad21
yep let's blame the guy for trying to help families get back on their feet, which it took the previous guy 8 years to destroy.
0
TexasAggie
More like the Obama depression is on.
0
Taka313
Please Sailwind,
Spare us the theatrics. For one year, there will be more cops on the beat. That's one year in which those cops aren't unemployed and one year in which the city has more police protection. You somehow think that's bad? So...your alternative is to not give them any money then. Please explain how the citizens of Columbus benefit from that?
Here, I'll tell you what. How about I put it this way for you in order to perhaps get you to come around:
It's a surge in capital to give the city of Columbus breathing room for them to get things done politically and budget-wise that need to get done.
There. Now, since you campaigned so hard on these threads that the surge of troops in Iraq in order to give the Iraqis some breathing room to get their govt. going was such a good idea and was successful, I'm sure you will be able to understand why a surge in capital may be in order and successful in order to help the people of Columbus.
Taka
0
rollonarte
“BusinessWeek interviewed a wide array of investment professionals, and many said the first six weeks of the Obama Administration have soured their outlook on the stock market.”
http://www.businessweek.com/print/investor/content/mar2009/pi2009034_253747.htm
0
sailwind
Taka,
Tell Colombus's Police Union to accept the pay freeze Mayor Coleman had asked them to accept in the first place and this 'stimulus money' wouldn't have been needed at all by the city at all. The money then could have gone to the City in the form of some sort of grant to help out local business there. Private business that creates real jobs.
You can thank the union for wasting this cash.
The decision was the result of "marathon meetings" over the past 1 1/2 weeks, Distelzweig said, but the announcement came a day after Mayor Michael B. Coleman criticized the police union and three other unions for rejecting a request to forgo pay raises this year.
It's the first time under Coleman -- and possibly the first time in Police Division history, according to Distelzweig -- that Columbus has laid off police officers. The mayor often bragged during his 2007 re-election campaign that the city added officers even during difficult budget years.
http://www.policeone.com/Grants/articles/1782082-Ohio-city-fires-27-police-recruits-to-save-money/
Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the city of Columbus Thursday, in response to Mayor Michael Coleman’s Jan. 14 request that five of the city’s unions, including the FOP, accept a pay freeze for 2009 or face layoffs—and to respond to that request by Jan. 23.
The pay freeze would save the city $10 million. All the unions, including Columbus Municipal Association of Government Employees, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, International Association of Fire Fighters, FOP and FOP/Ohio Labor Council, said, at the time, that the Friday deadline was “unrealistic.”
http://www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2009/02/05/front/doc4978fb09480ab466721137.txt
0
sailwind
Taka,
One more interesting thing about the article. Hate to qibble, the article mentions Democrats and Republicans all over it, yet it fails to mentions Mayor Coleman party affiliation, I was just curious why. Must be just a little oversight on the editors part.
0
Madverts
"We have two posters on this thread who seems to believe that all 651,000 jobs lost in February are the fault of a president in office less than one month"
Those of us few radicals left will continue to ignore and/or critisize everything the Obama administration does, whether I understand it or not, or indeed if it's good for America or not.
In fact, I'm with rollo and USA-aggie. I'm now openly hoping America implodes and becomes a failed state under Obama, just to prove how great republicans are.
0
rollonarte
Small businesses create well over 80 percent of the jobs in America, and this admin is hostile to them.
A lot of the wealth and job creators in the country are 'going John Galt' - reducing personal income to evade unfair tax rates and cutting operating costs (more lay-offs) so as to no longer subsidize the unproductive and wasteful programs 'liberal' government's imposed wealth transfers seek to expand.
It will be the same with the Dem plan for socialized medicine. You can implement the program, but you can't force American doctors to practice your brand of medicine.
0
WilliB
daydream:
LOL! The only jobs created through this wealth redistribution scheme mislabelled as "stimulus" are government jobs. Not jobs in rest of the economy that is taxed to pay for them.
If a country could tax-and-spend its way to wealth, then Venezuela and Cuba would be blossoming economies, and Hong Kong would be a basket case. Sorry, your slogan does not meet a reality check.
0
rollonarte
The teleprompter flickers, he mouths the talking points, markets go south.
What a disaster.
0
throwinstones
"What a disaster."
Indeed. During the run-up to the presidency Obama was all positive. Accordingly the Dow jumped into the 9000's. Then the day after Obama's very negative and gloomy inaguration speech, well, free fall. It's been like this ever since. Everytime the guy opens his mouth and scares the masses, the Dow dives. Just a few days ago he claimed the markets had hit bottom and sure enough the Dow jumped a few hundred points... only to have him backtrack and let another slide begin. Is the guy dim or what ? How long will it take him to figure it out... Ronald Reagan he's not.
0
likeitis
To figure what out? That his mouth can have a temporary and small positive effect on the market? That telling Americans honestly the way it is won't make a short term rally?
You know, the crying of a child is enough to bother just about anyone. So does that mean you don't spank your kids when they do wrong?
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, cryin' time is here. Americans need their dose of reality for the sake of the long term. Another false hope of a small jump in the market they don't need.
0
Madverts
"Americans need their dose of reality for the sake of the long term."
NO I DO NOT
If Senator McCain was president, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today - especially with the economic surplus left by Mr Bush, and his fine handling of the country over the last 8 years.
I'm just praying for America to collapse to blame it on the Democrats. That's what you call a real patriot, folks.
0
likeitis
I am getting better at spotting sarcasm.
0
Sarge
Mad: "I'm just praying for America to collapse"
Heh, I'll bet you are.
0
likeitis
Is this a cut and paste from a right wing blog, or can you actually make a statement to back that up?
0
Sarge
likeitis ( whatever that means ): "I am getting better at spotting sarcasm"
See if you can spot this sarcasm:
President Obama is already the greatest president in the history of the United States of America.
0
Madverts
Sarge, one day you will learn to appreciate European sarcasm, young man. It is in fact those on the radical right that I was stereotyping whom are praying for Obama's failure.
"Patriots".
0
Sarge
likeitis ( whatever that means ): "Is this a cut and paste from a right wing blog, or can you actually make a ststement to back that up?"
The question is, can likeitis ( whatever that means ) prove rollonarte wrong?
0
likeitis
No Sarge, the question is: Does rollonarte have a leg to stand on?
I am not saying he is wrong and I am not on a campaign to do so. I just can't find any basis for the statement. Naturally, in your simple world, you think they are all one and the same. I really want to know Obama's position. I don't support people (unlike some people) despite all. I support ideas. (I do not expect you to understand the difference though. I just have this small hope that maybe one day you will get it.)
0
Sarge
likeitis - President Obama is bent on raising taxes for anyone or any business making over $200,000 a year. That is why rollonarte said the Obama administration is hostile to them. That gives him a a leg to stand on, no?
0
TheQuestion
You want reality? Come to Michigan. For 6 years Grandholm has been implementing the same plans that the President is now. Healthcare expansions, infrastructue reforms to decrease unemployment, and redistributing wealth from the upper class to the masses. You know what happened? The upper class business owners left, the healthcare is a resounding failure, and the schools are using 8 time refurbished text books. Now the only employer left is the auto industry which is bogged down by regulation, heavy corporate taxes, and sluggish sales because they can't keep up with the foreign car companies that don't have to worry about the astronomic standards or the unions.
When you have to jump from job to job because the businesses here can't afford to pay for fulltime benefits and you have to resort to being 'on call' at a dozen or so small businesses that may or may not need you that particular day, even false hope is appreciated. Now I'm going to work for 5 hours at Flemings Meat Processing so that I can eat and pay my tuition until the next odd job, maybe I should sit around and think about how unfair the world is then cry about it eh likeitis?
0
Taka313
Sail,
Some of your reasoning leaves me absolutely slack-jawed.
Your solution to the police issue in Columbus is for the cops to freeze their salaries. I noticed recently, you are quick to complain when YOUR money was affected in a debate with LFRagain. Yet, your solution to this issue is, the Columbus police (as in other people) should make the sacrifice.
Or, if you prefer, since it will save the govt. money, are you willing to forego your yearly cost of living raise to help the economy?
And again, why is it that we can afford to spend extra money to support a surge to help Iraqis, but we can't spend money on a surge in capital to help Americans? I commented on that before but you didn't really feel like responding to that part, for some reason.
Then you go on to say that all of this will make people dependent on the govt., and that is bad.
Who do you work for and for how many years? Who provides for your health care? In what facility do you buy your MGD? Your retirement money comes through who? This is why I'm so shocked.
As for your media conspiracy thing, you are embarrassing yourself. Really.
Taka
0
Molenir
Nice soundbite, nonsense of course, but at least it sounds good, and thats all that matters these days right.
Looking more and more like Obama is the worst President since Jimmy Carter. Depending on his actions, and how the economy goes, he may be even worse then Carter, and that would take some doing.
0
Taka313
Wow, molenir,
You say Pres. Obama is the worst since Pres. Carter after less than two months and then accuse others of nonsense.
Please...continue. My irony meter has barely breached the red. I'm sure with a little more effort, you can bury that sucker.
Taka
0
Taka313
Also molenir,
How is my statement nonsens?
We spent a lot of money on troops and well...money to buy the Iraqis more time to get their govt. together. How is that money well spent and money spent to get America back together "nonsense?"
Do you believe the U.S. will get a huge economic return on their investment in Iraq? If so, please explain to me how the U.S. will be compensated for their investment?
Why is America helping Americans a bad thing and America helping Iraqis a good thing (assuming you are not an Iraqi)?
Taka
0
yabits
Well, take a look at the charts on the study at the link below "Business Formation and Dynamics by Business Age." Yes, when you look at statistics over a 1-2 year period, small businesses do create a lot of jobs, but nowhere near 80%. The problem is that many small businesses don't last as long as five years, and so they're also a big destroyer of jobs too.
I've got to laugh a bit, because when someone gets laid off and attempts to start their own business, the act of doing so creates one job. There are a lot of individuals who do this. Millions of them. But they don't "hire" anyone but themselves, and more likely than not, they are back trying to work for a larger, more established business within five years.
The key metric is NET job creation, and especially, the net job creation of employees beyond the owner or sole proprietor. When you average out the creation of jobs by small businesses with the destruction of jobs by the same, it isn't all that impressive.
http://www.ces.census.gov/docs/bds/bdspaperCAEDmay2008dec2.pdf
0
yabits
The basic problem here is giving creedence to anything that Molenir has to say about anything.
0
likeitis
No. The fact of being a small business is not defined in terms of profit. But if you or he have some information to make any sort of link between the figure of $200,000 dollars profit and the typical small business, I am all ears.
Further, that does not justify the use of the word "hostile". Its not a rise in tax that is hostile, it would be the amount of the rise. My understanding is that the rise will be gradual from $200,000, i.e. progressive. I would not even say Obama's policy is "hostile" toward the rich, but it would certainly be more accurate than saying he is hostile toward small business.
Lastly, someone has to pay for all those hand-outs. Anyone making $200,000 in profits or more a year can certainly afford to shell out a little more. I don't make anywhere near that, yet I still have some savings.
All in all, I would have to say that you and he are engaging in the usual scare tactics, via talking out your rumps, to try to get people on your side.
0
likeitis
Where did they go? Did they leave Michigan or the country?
Yep. Unions. And sluggish sales. I think those two have more do with eachother than anything you can pin on the government.
0
Taka313
That is something that I have found very amusing. The right-wing crazies are going bonkers about how Pres. Obama is using fear mongering to push his agenda through.
Then, in the same breath, they shriek that Pres. Obama is moving us toward socialism. So...when Pres. Obama tells the country that a bad situation is a bad situation, it's fear mongering. When people falsely accuse the president of an "ism" (communism, fascism, socialism; take your pick), that's all cool.
I often wonder if these folks realize how dumb they sound.
Taka
0
likeitis
Taka, I think the originators of such statements are totally focused on the fact that there are plenty of dumb people who will listen and repeat what they have said. So I don't think they realize anymore how dumb they sound since their words generate a power base. Certainly the repeaters of their words have no idea, no matter how many times we point out the inconsistencies. To them, inconsistency is just a word. It does not mean they are wrong in some way, not to them anyway. In fact, they would probably imagine it means they must be right in some way! And never imagine it is quite possible for two wrongs to be at odds with eachother.
It is the way they make it sound. But I think the meaning of the words are irrelevant to their purpose, so the meaning is barely considered. They have what I am now calling "lemming butt disease". It means they are so fixated on the lemming butt in front of them that they follow it anywhere, and never bother to raise their heads high enough to see where they are going. It works great when there is plenty of space to manuever. But having lemming butt disease they still can't see that they have led us to an area with cliffs ahead and at each side.
0
sailwind
Taka,
It's not my solution it was Mayor Coleman's solution. The police union balked. Please don't try to make this out as 'my solution'.
I've advocated for a total Government spending freeze to set the example, so in a nutshell........ Yes.
Not really relevant to the topic, we were danger of losing Iraq in the midst of a war. The surge reversed that and now Obama can bring the troops home.
I don't oppose that we spend capital on programs that create real private sector jobs, I do oppose we spend money on programs that are forever dependent on taxpayer money and will just be another burden on the next generation to continue to pay for them.
Then you go on to say that all of this will make people dependent on the govt., and that is bad.
I fullfilled my end of the bargain when I signed my life away to Uncle Sam, now the Government is now fullfilling its end....What is so shocking about that?
I just find it curious that they omitted that he was a Democrat yet all the other pols mentioned in the article they made sure you knew their party affiliation. It also would have been nice if they would have mentioned that Mayor Coleman had proposed a pay freeze for his city workers and that the Police union balked.
0
Molenir
Your statement is nonsense, because you're comparing apples and oranges. You're saying that the 800 billion or so spent over the past 6 years on the Iraq war should have been spent on the US economy. I'm saying its simply nonsense. Where do you think the vast majority of that money went to? I'll tell you where, to Americans. People working for companies like Boeing, building the planes, the soldiers fighting over there. While the US did give quite a bit of money to Iraq, the vast majority of it went to Americans. So how was that bad for the economy?
As for the reasons behind me calling Obama the worst President since Carter. The things the man is doing, raising taxes in the middle of a recession, trying to implement socialized medicine in the middle of a recession, and talking crap about the economy. This is costing real people jobs. Not only is it costing people their jobs, its costing many people their life savings, as investors are being decimated by the stock markets crash. What he is saying and doing, can be compared in other circumstances to being criminally negligent.
While I'm not to the point that you and other posters were over the last 8 years, where you were constantly calling Bush an idiot, saying he should be arrested, or impeached etc, I'm starting to lean that way. Depending on how things turn out over the next 6 months, I could easily see myself reaching that point.
0
likeitis
Without debating the facts of that statement, let me ask you where the money went from there. Please keep in mind that economy is motion. If the money stopped, that is bad for the economy. So, did the "vast majority" of that money continue to move, or did it pool somewhere?
0
Molenir
Of course it moved. It went into the pocketbooks of American soldiers, who used it to support their families. It went to pay American workers, it went to pay American companies for parts, labor and supplies. That 800 Billion was spent on the US economy. The mere fact that the fighting was taking place overseas didn't really matter. Oh some of the money went to prop up and help the government of Iraq. Some went to other countries helping out. The vast majority of it however went right back to the American citizens who it was taken from in the first place.
0
Taka313
O.K. molenir, I'll bite.
So what's the difference then between doing it then and Pres. Obama doing it now? Won't the stimulus money go to create jobs for people who will then be taxed in America and who will spend the money in America, putting it right back where it came from?
Why the double-standard?
Taka
0
goodDonkey
Under the Bush system we can keep making more military products because they get used up and that keeps people employed.
Under Obama's plan we build bridges, roads, schools, sewer systems, etc. and we are stuck with them. What good are these temporary jobs? Eventually the private sector will have to go out and find more jobs? So what good does Obama's plan do; we still need permanent jobs? Oh sure we will still have those dollars in the system. But with Bush it is automatically renewable employment and if Iraq got too peaceful Dick Cheney was working real hard to get in a war with Iran. Can you just imagine the new jobs that would be created if we were in three wars at one time? The problem with Obama's plan is that eventually we will have rebuilt everything that needs rebuilding. What then? We are stuck with the new technology that he funded research to provide us with. I suppose people think that will provide jobs or maybe his expansion of education; is that going to create jobs? The Bush way makes sure the things we produce are gone then we have to make more; isn't that more efficient?
Like Molenir said, "Your statement is nonsense, because you're comparing apples and oranges. You're saying that the 800 billion or so spent over the past 6 years on the Iraq war should have been spent on the US economy. I'm saying its simply nonsense. Where do you think the vast majority of that money went to?"
Yeah, where is that money now?
0
Molenir
Taka, you ask a good question, and I initially started to answer it precisely as it deserved, with a good and detailed response. I found however that the reply was getting to be way, way too long, and so instead, I hope you'll forgive me for giving instead a simple answer, rather then the complex and complete one your question deserves.
There are 2 basic reasons why the military spending is different from the stimulus. The first one is the obvious. The military charges were spent over a 6 year period, not the 1 or 2 year period involved in the stimulus. In fact much of the spending was accomplished through the normal military budget. This made the burden a bit easier to take.
The other reason has more to do with economic and philosophical theory. My full answer is really too in depth, so I'll simply say, that the government by its very nature is inefficient and wasteful. By taking the money of the taxpayers and spending it in ways that the citizens would normally not support, in ways that are both inefficient and wasteful, is not what the country needed. Particularly since much of the spending isn't going to take effect until next year, meaning its not stimulating anything. Add in the overall negative effect the new laws will have on the economy, and the White Houses own numbers saying that in the long term it would have been better for the economy to have not passed the stimulus, and you begin to see why I might feel the way I do.
Please don't misunderstand by the way. I was opposed to Iraq. I don't think it really benefited the US at all. However the spending there was directly related to the mission. I would have been much happier had the US not spent the money on the military, or for that matter on the stimulus, and instead used it to cut the deficit. In the long run, having a balanced budget would be better for both the country and the economy.
0
Taka313
Good Donkey,
"Yeah, where is that money now?"
Actually (and please try to suspend your sense of utter disbelief), molenir's statement isn't quite correct (yeah, I know).
Much of the money went to the Iraqi govt.
$9 billion simply DISAPPEARED.
And all the money that went to the biggest contractor, kbr, ended up in the Cayman Islands.
Mind you, all of this is good and proper, patriotic and perhaps even borders on holy.
However, Americans spending money to help Americans is (apparently) the antithesis of American.
Boggles the mind, does it not?
Taka
0
sailwind
Can't find anything about Bush anywhere in the article.
Some folks just can't let go I guess.
0
goodDonkey
Let see a conservative posted a comment about Bush and I responded to that comment. I would think this conservative had every right to bring up Bush since he has not even been out of office even 60 days and any economist will tell you in that short amount of time a two term president has a profound impact on the current economic status. But I guess some people just want everyone to pretend Bush never existed.
As it is very normal to continue to bring Bush into current discussions of our economy one has to wonder about those who are trying to control us into never mentioning his name. It would seem the syndrome that was most prevalent here would be the Denial of Bush's Existence Syndrome. But don't worry I don't believe in all that stupid syndrome crap that people are peddling. I just wanted to prove I can come up with that kind of nonsense just as easy as they can. The difference is that they mention this fictitious syndrome over and over and they tell us how we can't let go over and over. It does not matter whether Bush is relevant to the discussion or not; these people must shriek about it every time his name is brought up. Let's face it nobody on this thread made up "Bush Derangement Syndrome" ("BDS"). Where did they get it from? A right wing nut site. So just remember when they are telling everyone how others can't let go of "Bush" they are doing there good little duty as a foot soldier for Rush Limbaugh.
How is it that the same people that shriek at Obama's efforts to rescue the economy will not let us state how it got there? I am concerned with Obama mentioning any gains this early. I feel he should not be discussing the benefits of the stimulus package for awhile. Like I said in another post, we will be lucky if the hemorrhaging stops within a year let alone showing a positive quarter any time soon. It could take much closer to two years for something that has only been eclipsed by the Great Depression. It took decades to recover from that. Our economy has been brought to its knees in ways that the average individual could not imagine. The Republicans are on the Sunday talk shows saying let GM fail. Let the banks fail. Well they do show us that they can follow the leader. I guess it is up to the rest of us to try to work together to help our country recover from a true crisis. The conservatives will continue to advise others: "Just don't ever mention what caused the crisis." "Don't compare our solution to previous efforts." And above all, on the Republican agenda, "do not ever, under any circumstances give Obama credit when our economy recovers under his direction."
0
Sarge
"Obama touts stimulus gains... pointing to jobs he says were already saved by his $787 billion economic stimulus package"
"the country's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1%"
Thank goodness for the saved jobs.
President Obama:"I just want to figure out what works ( to reform health care )"
Translation: He's clueless.
0
TheQuestion
Problem with that is that the big three have been through sales slumps before and they've been dealing with Unions as long as anyone can remember, its only recently that they've come crashing to their knees.
Dunno, all I know is that cities like Port Huron and Saginaw used to be fairly successful commercial centers. Now they consist of a few buffets clustered around a walmart with empty strip malls and rentable buildings as far as the eye can see. And don't even get me started on Wayne county.
0
Taka313
Good Donkey,
No. I think it really is bush derangement syndrome. What "the right" always fails to mention is that bds is brought on by excessive exposure to the bush accountability denial virus.
Nasty little bugger. Immune to all anti-biotics. Only facts and accountability seem to kill it.
Taka
0
Taka313
Also GD,
You ever notice, that Sunday morning news, the most important news slot of the entire week, where political parties push their agenda, is dominated by republicans.
Must be the "liberal media conspiracy."
Taka
0
rollonarte
Geithner can't even find deputies to help him do his job as Treasury Sec.
Really inspiring confidence, what markets need most - not that the anti-capitalists in the Obama admin care.
MSNBC's Cramer was right - it's amateur hour as we face our darkest moments.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5861246.ece
0
sailwind
Through bi-partisan tax cuts, borrow and spend. Kinda like how Obama plans to get us out.
Seems he hasn't learned a thing either as to how we got there.
Nice to see Cheney and Rush get a mention on this thread also.
0
rollonarte
National Review claims the stimulus is working.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDU1NGQxYjI2ZmQ3YWJlODY5YTgyOTQ3MjQ4YjNlNDY=
Back to top