The President's Campaign promises...

[SHTSPRAYER]

The President promised to create 4 million jobs. Anybody think this is possible?

How many jobs have we lost since he's taken office? Looks like a net loss so far.

[Frankie]

yeah, he's already about 10 days in!!! :cuss: Let's impeach him.

[jAZ]

The President promised to create 4 million jobs. Anybody think this is possible?

How many jobs have we lost since he's taken office? Looks like a net loss so far.

It was create or retain 3M jobs on the trail. The latest estimate of this package is 4M. But I don' belive that number is from the campaign. In either case, "retain" was part of the promise.

[splatbass]

yeah, he's already about 10 days in!!! :cuss: Let's impeach him.

The latest Republican talking point is how so many jobs have been lost since he took office and it is all his fault (because the economy was so good when he took office :) ). Rush Limbaugh was ranting about it today. The lemmings like SHTSPRAYER are all repeating it like they are expected to do.

It is all rather hilarious that they would think anyone would blame Obama when he has only been in office 10 days. They seem to have a real problem with reality.

[SNR]

The President promised to create 4 million jobs. Anybody think this is possible?

How many jobs have we lost since he's taken office? Looks like a net loss so far.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6PaHcZUHI00&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6PaHcZUHI00&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

Well there's nothing in his stimulus bill that stimulates job creation.

[splatbass]

Well there's nothing in his stimulus bill that stimulates job creation.

Nothing? Not one thing? Really? Road and bridge construction projects don't stimulate job creation? Are they using robots for that work now or something?

There may not be as much job creation as you would like, but to say that there is none at all is pure hyperbole.

[banyon]

Well there's nothing in his stimulus bill that stimulates job creation.

There's nothing in this post that is persuasive on any point whatsoever.

[Direckshun]

I remember hearing him promising 5 million.

Yeah, I believe that this promise, paired with his promise to have us off foriegn oil in ten years, is the most unrealistic of any of his goals.

But hey, overreaching is good. That's my take.

[Adam]

Creating jobs is not the role of the POTUS.

[splatbass]

Creating jobs is not the role of the POTUS.

I think the people that elected him think it is.

[Friendo]

I hear there's an opening for a couple of new peanut butter inspectors.

[headsnap]

I think the people that elected him think it is.

The Savior!!!


a President can promote the environment where JOBS are created or he can create 'make work' jobs...

[SHTSPRAYER]

The latest Republican talking point is how so many jobs have been lost since he took office and it is all his fault (because the economy was so good when he took office :) ).

Don't be silly, that would be like blaming 911 on the Clinton administration.

:)

[bkkcoh]

I think the people that elected him think it is.

But some of his supporters also thought the republicans were in charge of the house and senate also. :banghead:

[Chief Henry]

For every step Barry takes on water, he'll create 100 jobs.

[Frankie]

Don't be silly, that would be like blaming 911 on the Clinton administration.

:)

Talk about being silly! Wow!:shake:

[splatbass]

But some of his supporters also thought the republicans were in charge of the house and senate also. :banghead:

Not true, but the Democrats had a very slim majority, not enough to get anything done. You know this is true.

[patteeu]

It was create or retain 3M jobs on the trail. The latest estimate of this package is 4M. But I don' belive that number is from the campaign. In either case, "retain" was part of the promise.

It was "create" first. Then when he realized he hadn't built in the normal wiggle room he builds into his rhetoric, he revised it to "create or retain" and pretty much obliterated the promise altogether.

Apparently SHTSPRAYER's job and thousands more like it weren't among those he plans to retain.

[patteeu]

I hear there's an opening for a couple of new peanut butter inspectors.

:LOL:

[banyon]

Creating jobs is not the role of the POTUS.

Yeah, wouldn't it be swell if he just announced a speech, stood on a podium and said "don't worry folks, the same deregulated market that got us into this is going to take care of this, I'm going on a golf vacation".

[SHTSPRAYER]

Yeah, wouldn't it be swell if he just announced a speech, stood on a podium and said "don't worry folks, the same deregulated market that got us into this is going to take care of this, I'm going on a golf vacation".


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lr1M1T2Y314&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lr1M1T2Y314&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[banyon]

Yes, you don't understand what happened in the housing crisis, I knew that already.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Yes, you don't understand what happened in the housing crisis, I knew that already.

You don't have to keep affirming your cognitive dissonance, it's been validated already.

Here, this is something you and the other moonbats can better identify with...


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J_5YdXO1VT8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J_5YdXO1VT8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[banyon]

You don't have to keep affirming your cognitive dissonance, it's been validated already.

Here, this is something you and the other moonbats can better identify with...


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J_5YdXO1VT8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J_5YdXO1VT8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I don't know why you have a video about pentagrams and satanic worship so handy, nor do I care, as it has nothing to do with anything.

[whoman69]

Don't be silly, that would be like blaming 911 on the Clinton administration.

:)

Its one thing to blame an inherited situation on a guy that's been in office for 10 days, vs someone who took a vacation 137 days out of his first nine months in office.

[warrior]

Its one thing to blame an inherited situation on a guy that's been in office for 10 days, vs someone who took a vacation 137 days out of his first nine months in office.



Ding Ding we have a winner. :D

[SHTSPRAYER]

Its one thing to blame an inherited situation on a guy that's been in office for 10 days, vs someone who took a vacation 137 days out of his first nine months in office.


Took a vacation? Hey jackass, that party of scumbags that you toss their salad so much? Yeah, they did everything possible to delay Bush from creating a cabinet or appointing anybody to key positions.

Your boy wanted the job,well he got it. Comes with responsibility, though.

DAY 10: NET LOSS

[Frankie]

Yeah, they did everything possible to delay Bush from creating a cabinet or appointing anybody to key positions.

Yet the ones that went through turned out ranging from incompetent to corrupt to treasonous. Can you imagine if the congress had not done the amount of vetting that they did?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Yet the ones that went through turned out ranging from incompetent to corrupt to treasonous. Can you imagine if the congress had not done the amount of vetting that they did?

Flunkie, I'm trying to figure something out, maybe you can answer it for me:

Do you share your drugs with Cannibal, or does he share his with you? Thanks in advance.

[Cannibal]

Well there's nothing in his stimulus bill that stimulates job creation.

There's nothing between your legs that "stimulates" anything except maybe your dog's tongue when you put peanut butter down there.

[banyon]

That's probably going too far.

[Cannibal]

Probably.

[SHTSPRAYER]

There's nothing between your legs that "stimulates" anything except maybe your dog's tongue when you put peanut butter down there.

You sound like you have plenty of experience.

[Cannibal]

You sound like you have plenty of experience.

Wow, you're coming up with the good stuff tonight sh!t for brains. I'm totally impressed.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Wow, you're coming up with the good stuff tonight sh!t for brains. I'm totally impressed.

Well you see what I have to work with...

You.

:drool:

[noswad]

again why is this numb nuts still here?

[SHTSPRAYER]

again why is this numb nuts still here?

I'm here to keep all you moonbats honest.

[Frankie]

There's nothing between your legs that "stimulates" anything except maybe your dog's tongue when you put peanut butter down there.

:shake:

[warrior]

There's nothing between your legs that "stimulates" anything except maybe your dog's tongue when you put peanut butter down there.


ROFL

[warrior]

again why is this numb nuts still here?

Good question :(

[noswad]

Good question :(

No football related threads since November

[SHTSPRAYER]

No football related threads since November


When the Chiefs actually resemble a football team, I'll start a thread on them.

[aturnis]

The President promised to create 4 million jobs. Anybody think this is possible?

How many jobs have we lost since he's taken office? Looks like a net loss so far.

Yes Shithead, the jobs lost since he's taken office are his fault. You asshat. Everything happen right now is all residual effects of the Bush reign.

Also, it will be very easy if jobs keep being lost. If 7 million are lost, and he creates 5 million, he wins.

Go fuck a sheep.

[Frankie]

Yes Shithead, the jobs lost since he's taken office are his fault. You asshat. Everything happen right now is all residual effects of the Bush reign.

Also, it will be very easy if jobs keep being lost. If 7 million are lost, and he creates 5 million, he wins.

Go **** a sheep.

It takes a lot of braking to stop a runaway train.

[BucEyedPea]

Nothing? Not one thing? Really? Road and bridge construction projects don't stimulate job creation? Are they using robots for that work now or something?

There may not be as much job creation as you would like, but to say that there is none at all is pure hyperbole.
What part of the word stimulate did you not understand? Providing a job with make-work programs by the govt isn't stimulating anything. It's providing.

I'm talking jobs being created in the private sector by the private sector via stimulus....not artificial make-work jobs that require those left standing to be plundered which means less money is available for the private sector to grow, but will make it shrink. And those do not replace most of the jobs lost. It just grows govt.

The goal of a healthy economy is to stimulate productivity which leads to jobs by the private sector. The govt can only provide so many.

[BucEyedPea]

I think the people that elected him think it is.

Where does the Constitution empower him with it. Hmmm?

A recent Gallop Poll rating is showing his approval is already starting to fall.

[splatbass]

I'm talking jobs being created in the private sector by the private sector....not artificial jobs that require those left standing to be plundered which means less money is available for the private sector to grow, but will make it shrink. And those do not replace most of the jobs lost. It just grows govt. The goal of a healthy economy is to stimulate productivity which leads to jobs by the private sector.

Those are private sector jobs. The government hires contractors to do that work. When a contractor gets a new contract they hire people to do the work, or they keep on people that they might have laid off otherwise.

[BucEyedPea]

Those are private sector jobs. The government hires contractors to do that work. When a contractor gets a new contract they hire people to do the work, or they keep on people that they might have laid off otherwise.

It's still doesn't stimulate anything. It is providing jobs via make-work programs. Look up the word.

[splatbass]

Where does the Constitution empower him with it. Hmmm?

A recent Gallop Poll rating is showing his approval is already starting to fall.

1. Who cares? The constitution doesn't mention everything the president ever does. It was not intended to. It does empower congress to pass bills, and the president to sign them into law. It also doesn't limit them as long as they don't take away the rights given us in the constitution. Do you really believe the president isn't allowed to do it? Really? :doh!:

2. Of course it has fallen. The 80% at the inauguration was artificially high due to excitement over the inauguration. It was destined to fall. But the 68% he has now is still VERY high. Much better than the 20% our previous president enjoyed. :D

[BucEyedPea]

1. Who cares? The constitution doesn't mention everything the president ever does. It was not intended to.
That's just a personal opinion with no basis in fact...like the document's words. Just because we long ago stopped following a lot of it doesn't make it correct. It's error.

It does empower congress to pass bills, and the president to sign them into law. It also doesn't limit them as long as they don't take away the rights given us in the constitution. Do you really believe the president isn't allowed to do it? Really? :doh!:
Nope. It was primarily written as a restraint on the Federal govt. It's a document of specific and enumerated powers.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now please show me where the document says congress is to pass bills creating make-work programs ( except for valid Federal infrastructure—not the state's such as green schools). Make-work programs not fixing and repair what normally is fixed and repaired. ( chain gains can do the work instead of paying a bunch of new people to save money.) And no it doesn't fall under the "general welfare" clause because one could argue it won't do that but that term is supposed to be applied under the doctrine of "specific and enumerated" powers that the Fed govt has only.

2. Of course it has fallen. The 80% at the inauguration was artificially high due to excitement over the inauguration. It was destined to fall. But the 68% he has now is still VERY high. Much better than the 20% our previous president enjoyed. :D

Ah! Lemme see most people did not support the bailouts and thought the R's overspent including on pork which the stimulous bill is overloaded with.
Nope, it's the same story different party.

[splatbass]

Now please show me where the document says congress is to pass bills creating make-work programs ( except for valid Federal infrastructure—not the state's such as green schools). Make-work programs not fixing and repair what normally is fixed and repaired. ( chain gains can do the work instead of paying a bunch of new people to save money.) And no it doesn't fall under the "general welfare" clause because one could argue it won't do that but that term is supposed to be applied under the doctrine of "specific and enumerated" powers that the Fed govt has only.


Article I, section 9, clause 7

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. /[i]

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/51.html

[i]This clause is a limitation upon the power of the Executive Department and does not restrict Congress in appropriating moneys in the Treasury. That body may recognize and pay a claim of an equitable, moral, or honorary nature. When it directs a specific sum to be paid to a certain person, neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor any court has discretion to determine whether the person is entitled to receive it.

[banyon]

That's just a personal opinion with no basis in fact...like the document's words. Just because we long ago stopped following a lot of it doesn't make it correct. It's error.

It's just his personal opinion? That kind of reminds me of someone else who injected their own opinion with no facts that didn't make it true. Who did it remind me of? Oh, yeah. You. In this post.

[Simplex3]

1. Who cares? The constitution doesn't mention everything the president ever does. It was not intended to. It does empower congress to pass bills, and the president to sign them into law. It also doesn't limit them as long as they don't take away the rights given us in the constitution. Do you really believe the president isn't allowed to do it? Really? :doh!:

By today's standards or by the standards our country was founded on? Because the two are not even close to the same.

[Simplex3]

Article I, section 9, clause 7

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. /[i]

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/51.html

[i]This clause is a limitation upon the power of the Executive Department and does not restrict Congress in appropriating moneys in the Treasury. That body may recognize and pay a claim of an equitable, moral, or honorary nature. When it directs a specific sum to be paid to a certain person, neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor any court has discretion to determine whether the person is entitled to receive it.

I know precious few honest and informed people who would tell you the founding fathers intended for the country to be run like it is today. Several of those honest and informed people will say it is their opinion the founding fathers would be OK with it, several would say it is necessary in today's world and that the founders couldn't have predicted today's situations. Fine. That's their opinion.

There's no arguing, though, that the Constitution enumerates the federal government's powers and reserves all others to the states and the people. Which leads to, In my opinion, one place the founders royally screwed the pooch. The "Necessary and Proper" clause. They should have foreseen that would be abused by people seeking power over other men.