Stand up comic or serious statement?

I see Obama's statement as a sheepish admission the plan started slowly and didn't have the desired results. It gives far left folks less footing in their continuing defense of failure.
 
Record Debt

Record deficits bigger than any Reagan budget

Record Poverty

Record Homelessness

Record Unemployment not seen since the FDR Depression

That's funny stuff
 
It's a funny thing when the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks, which is what most of you say we need to get the economy rolling again, and then you complain about it. Maybe it's because the bulk of those tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy that you didn't like them?

I'd like to know who got them then, because it sure as hell wasn't the middle class working man, and no, you cannot count the Bush tax cuts as a tax break under Obama, all continuing those tax cuts did was continue the same level of taxation that we had under Bush. If anyone got a tax cut, it was Obamas buddy GE's CEO Jeffery Immelt *SP. Oh, by the way, GE has not paid a corporate taxes.
http://politisite.com/2011/03/25/white-house-defends-general-electric-despite-not-paying-taxes-in-2010-and-accepting-3-2b-in-corproate-welfare/
Must be nice to know Obama on that level. Talk about hypocrisy at it's best. Here is your one tax cut that the billions in stimulus gave someone. And that someone happened to be one of berry's best friends, go figure.
 
Last edited:
Washington is buzzing over Obama's "joke" or admission of failure when he said (with a smile) "our shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we expected". If he intended it as a joke it is profoundly insulting and if he admitted that his stimulous didn't work the credibility of his administration has collapsed.

He would never admit he was wrong on spending, since he wants more of it.

So I wonder what kind of mental retardation it takes to think it's funny that people don't have jobs and what he did had no positive affect.
 
Barry probably didn't even know what "shovel ready" meant. It was a cliche like "hope/change". Where are the "green jobs". That was a cliche also. It's not hard to figure out the empty suit in the white house. Why hire a communist with no experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to the green jobs board? Because it ain't about green jobs. It's about revolution. Why refer to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of republicans? Hatred for capitalism. How are we ever going to fix the economy with a neo-socialist in charge?
 
Barry probably didn't even know what "shovel ready" meant. It was a cliche like "hope/change". Where are the "green jobs". That was a cliche also. It's not hard to figure out the empty suit in the white house. Why hire a communist with no experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to the green jobs board? Because it ain't about green jobs. It's about revolution. Why refer to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of republicans? Hatred for capitalism. How are we ever going to fix the economy with a neo-socialist in charge?

2012 elections.
 
Stimulus worked just as it was supposed to, added debt, paid off unions and statists and hurt the private sector
 
It's a funny thing when the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks, which is what most of you say we need to get the economy rolling again, and then you complain about it. Maybe it's because the bulk of those tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy that you didn't like them?

The largest portion of the stimulus was not "tax breaks." That is a lie spin by the Left.
Whatever passed for tax breaks were essentially payoffs to favored groups. THey would do nothing for the economy. Most of the spending went for waste, fraud, graft, and corruption. The rest got wasted.

I didn't say the majority was tax breaks; I said the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks. If you look at all the different things money went to, tax breaks was the largest single part of the plan, so it is not a lie at all.
 
It's a funny thing when the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks, which is what most of you say we need to get the economy rolling again, and then you complain about it. Maybe it's because the bulk of those tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy that you didn't like them?

Tell us where those tax breaks went to...sure as hell didn't go to anything that did us any good. Besides, his "shovel ready" jobs were supposed to help so many people that were out of work. Today there are more out of work than there was back when he passed the stimulus, because the majority of that money went to his favorite people...the ones that gave him so much money to help get him elected. It was just a payback that he probably promised them during his campaign!
Unless people get some money in THEIR pockets, this economy will never turn around. It depends on people spending money, and when there is none to spend, we all suffer.

Personally, I think the stimulus was a waste because it didn't really create or save that many jobs. If the entire amount of money had been put directly into infrastructure, then it would have been much more efficient at creating jobs and putting money into the economy.

As for the tax breaks, the largest part of them, over $100 billion, went to a temporary reduction in the payroll tax and the $400 tax credit, so it did help every American worker. But the benefit to each individual was so small, it really didn't do anything to help the economy. It was pretty much the same when Bush sent $600 to every American taxpayer, or whatever the amount was. I don't remember exactly.

My point is that had all the money been put into infrastructure, it would have created an actual trickle down effect as that money would have turned hands many times. Last of all, we, the taxpayers who will eventually have to pay this bill, would have actually seen something concrete for our money.
 
Last edited:
It's a funny thing when the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks, which is what most of you say we need to get the economy rolling again, and then you complain about it. Maybe it's because the bulk of those tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy that you didn't like them?

Tell us where those tax breaks went to...sure as hell didn't go to anything that did us any good. Besides, his "shovel ready" jobs were supposed to help so many people that were out of work. Today there are more out of work than there was back when he passed the stimulus, because the majority of that money went to his favorite people...the ones that gave him so much money to help get him elected. It was just a payback that he probably promised them during his campaign!
Unless people get some money in THEIR pockets, this economy will never turn around. It depends on people spending money, and when there is none to spend, we all suffer.

Personally, I think the stimulus was a waste because it didn't really create or save that many jobs. If the entire amount of money had been put directly into infrastructure, then it would have been much more efficient at creating jobs and putting money into the economy.

As for the tax breaks, the largest part of them, over $100 billion, went to a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, so it did help every American worker. But the benefit to each individual was so small, it really didn't do anything to help the economy. It was pretty much the same when Bush sent $600 to every American taxpayer, or whatever the amount was. I don't remember exactly.

My point is that had all the money been put into infrastructure, it would have created an actual trickle down effect as that money would have turned hands many times. Last of all, we, the taxpayers who will eventually have to pay this bill, would have actually seen something concrete for our money.

Another idiot still believing in the multiplyer effect.
Here's a hint:It doesn't work.
Throwing money into bridges to nowhere would not have helped the economy one bit.
 
Tell us where those tax breaks went to...sure as hell didn't go to anything that did us any good. Besides, his "shovel ready" jobs were supposed to help so many people that were out of work. Today there are more out of work than there was back when he passed the stimulus, because the majority of that money went to his favorite people...the ones that gave him so much money to help get him elected. It was just a payback that he probably promised them during his campaign!
Unless people get some money in THEIR pockets, this economy will never turn around. It depends on people spending money, and when there is none to spend, we all suffer.

Personally, I think the stimulus was a waste because it didn't really create or save that many jobs. If the entire amount of money had been put directly into infrastructure, then it would have been much more efficient at creating jobs and putting money into the economy.

As for the tax breaks, the largest part of them, over $100 billion, went to a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, so it did help every American worker. But the benefit to each individual was so small, it really didn't do anything to help the economy. It was pretty much the same when Bush sent $600 to every American taxpayer, or whatever the amount was. I don't remember exactly.

My point is that had all the money been put into infrastructure, it would have created an actual trickle down effect as that money would have turned hands many times. Last of all, we, the taxpayers who will eventually have to pay this bill, would have actually seen something concrete for our money.

Another idiot still believing in the multiplyer effect.
Here's a hint:It doesn't work.
Throwing money into bridges to nowhere would not have helped the economy one bit.

I don't support bridges to nowhere. The fact is that this country has an infrastructure crisis and the estimated cost is currently $2.5 trillion in needed repairs and upgrades. Here's a hint to you; reducing taxes to ridiculously low levels for the wealthy does not provide a trickle down effect creating millions of new jobs. If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess that we are now. The only thing the Bush tax cuts did was to help create the housing bubble that helped to crush the value of most working Americans biggest asset.
 
Personally, I think the stimulus was a waste because it didn't really create or save that many jobs. If the entire amount of money had been put directly into infrastructure, then it would have been much more efficient at creating jobs and putting money into the economy.

As for the tax breaks, the largest part of them, over $100 billion, went to a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, so it did help every American worker. But the benefit to each individual was so small, it really didn't do anything to help the economy. It was pretty much the same when Bush sent $600 to every American taxpayer, or whatever the amount was. I don't remember exactly.

My point is that had all the money been put into infrastructure, it would have created an actual trickle down effect as that money would have turned hands many times. Last of all, we, the taxpayers who will eventually have to pay this bill, would have actually seen something concrete for our money.

Another idiot still believing in the multiplyer effect.
Here's a hint:It doesn't work.
Throwing money into bridges to nowhere would not have helped the economy one bit.

I don't support bridges to nowhere. The fact is that this country has an infrastructure crisis and the estimated cost is currently $2.5 trillion in needed repairs and upgrades. Here's a hint to you; reducing taxes to ridiculously low levels for the wealthy does not provide a trickle down effect creating millions of new jobs. If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess that we are now. The only thing the Bush tax cuts did was to help create the housing bubble that helped to crush the value of most working Americans biggest asset.

We've had billions of dollars of infrastructure spending. It has produced renovated railroad stations that no one uses and turtle underpasses. Why do you think more spending will have a different result?

Here's a hint to you: The Bush tax cuts produced 7 years where unemployment was below 6%, inflation was below 4%, and we had steady GDP growth. What has the Obamastimulus produced?
 
It's a funny thing when the largest portion of the stimulus was tax breaks, which is what most of you say we need to get the economy rolling again, and then you complain about it. Maybe it's because the bulk of those tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy that you didn't like them?

So you are saying that we were right....that punishing business results in a tanked economy and pouring money into social programs is a waste?

Imagine that.
 
Hey could be.worse, could have joked about not finding wmd while our troops where in harms way.
both where jokes, both sucked as jokes, I don't give a rats ass about this issue.

But I see the normal people are out making bones.about.it.zzzzzzzzz

BOOOSSSHHHHH.
When are you guys going to get over Bush? I mean, he hasn't been president for 3 years already.

Do you think wasting taxpayer money on non-existent projects is funny?
 
Another idiot still believing in the multiplyer effect.
Here's a hint:It doesn't work.
Throwing money into bridges to nowhere would not have helped the economy one bit.

I don't support bridges to nowhere. The fact is that this country has an infrastructure crisis and the estimated cost is currently $2.5 trillion in needed repairs and upgrades. Here's a hint to you; reducing taxes to ridiculously low levels for the wealthy does not provide a trickle down effect creating millions of new jobs. If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess that we are now. The only thing the Bush tax cuts did was to help create the housing bubble that helped to crush the value of most working Americans biggest asset.

We've had billions of dollars of infrastructure spending. It has produced renovated railroad stations that no one uses and turtle underpasses. Why do you think more spending will have a different result?

Here's a hint to you: The Bush tax cuts produced 7 years where unemployment was below 6%, inflation was below 4%, and we had steady GDP growth. What has the Obamastimulus produced?

And that growth was completely based on an overinflated housing market that finally burst wide open. Without the housing bubble being created, there would not have been any growth during the Bush years. Can't you see that? All those tax cuts went directly into the housing market rather than to creating new businesses and more jobs. Yes, the housing bubble that was created did create jobs, but eventually the bubble burst and now we are paying for it. For the last couple of years of the bubble, the vast majority of new homes were sold to speculators, and when the bubble burst, it left us with millions of excess homes. The reason we cannot get out of this housing mess is because there are millions of vacant homes that nobody wants nor can afford. It is going to take at least five more years to find buyers for these homes that already exist. So that is at least five more years before we can even begin to look at new home building to help the economy.

I really think a lot of you live in some fantasy world where you think there is a simple answer to every problem. And because of that, you stay stuck in the same place not wanting to try to really figure out how we can make things better. I guess it's just more fun to blame someone else and try to make your talking points for your failed ideology.
 
I don't support bridges to nowhere. The fact is that this country has an infrastructure crisis and the estimated cost is currently $2.5 trillion in needed repairs and upgrades. Here's a hint to you; reducing taxes to ridiculously low levels for the wealthy does not provide a trickle down effect creating millions of new jobs. If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess that we are now. The only thing the Bush tax cuts did was to help create the housing bubble that helped to crush the value of most working Americans biggest asset.

We've had billions of dollars of infrastructure spending. It has produced renovated railroad stations that no one uses and turtle underpasses. Why do you think more spending will have a different result?

Here's a hint to you: The Bush tax cuts produced 7 years where unemployment was below 6%, inflation was below 4%, and we had steady GDP growth. What has the Obamastimulus produced?

And that growth was completely based on an overinflated housing market that finally burst wide open. Without the housing bubble being created, there would not have been any growth during the Bush years. Can't you see that? All those tax cuts went directly into the housing market rather than to creating new businesses and more jobs. Yes, the housing bubble that was created did create jobs, but eventually the bubble burst and now we are paying for it. For the last couple of years of the bubble, the vast majority of new homes were sold to speculators, and when the bubble burst, it left us with millions of excess homes. The reason we cannot get out of this housing mess is because there are millions of vacant homes that nobody wants nor can afford. It is going to take at least five more years to find buyers for these homes that already exist. So that is at least five more years before we can even begin to look at new home building to help the economy.

I really think a lot of you live in some fantasy world where you think there is a simple answer to every problem. And because of that, you stay stuck in the same place not wanting to try to really figure out how we can make things better. I guess it's just more fun to blame someone else and try to make your talking points for your failed ideology.

So every dollar of Bush tax cut money went to the housing bubble? Do you make this shit up as you go along? The housing market didnt reach "bubble" status until 2006/7. The tax cuts passed years before that.

But again, why do you think pouring more money into airports to nowhere and bridges no one uses is going to help this country?
 
We've had billions of dollars of infrastructure spending. It has produced renovated railroad stations that no one uses and turtle underpasses. Why do you think more spending will have a different result?

Here's a hint to you: The Bush tax cuts produced 7 years where unemployment was below 6%, inflation was below 4%, and we had steady GDP growth. What has the Obamastimulus produced?

And that growth was completely based on an overinflated housing market that finally burst wide open. Without the housing bubble being created, there would not have been any growth during the Bush years. Can't you see that? All those tax cuts went directly into the housing market rather than to creating new businesses and more jobs. Yes, the housing bubble that was created did create jobs, but eventually the bubble burst and now we are paying for it. For the last couple of years of the bubble, the vast majority of new homes were sold to speculators, and when the bubble burst, it left us with millions of excess homes. The reason we cannot get out of this housing mess is because there are millions of vacant homes that nobody wants nor can afford. It is going to take at least five more years to find buyers for these homes that already exist. So that is at least five more years before we can even begin to look at new home building to help the economy.

I really think a lot of you live in some fantasy world where you think there is a simple answer to every problem. And because of that, you stay stuck in the same place not wanting to try to really figure out how we can make things better. I guess it's just more fun to blame someone else and try to make your talking points for your failed ideology.

So every dollar of Bush tax cut money went to the housing bubble? Do you make this shit up as you go along? The housing market didnt reach "bubble" status until 2006/7. The tax cuts passed years before that.

But again, why do you think pouring more money into airports to nowhere and bridges no one uses is going to help this country?

Two simple reasons; first of all our infrastructure is falling apart, and it has to be paid for to be fixed. The only way it will ever be paid for is through tax dollars. If you want to deny that this country's infrastructure is falling apart, then there is no point discussing this, because then you are just living in your own fantasy world. If you do see the need for infrastructure spending, then you know it is not in airports to nowhere, but in things such as bridges that actually are used every day, updating sewer systems in our crumbling cities, new water treatment facilities, and the repairing of roads that have been patched over so many times, we don't even know how deep the original road is. And yes, spending money on things like this does help the economy. It creates jobs and that money does move down the line, creating economic growth. And we get something concrete for our money; it's not just thrown away. Actually, spending money on infrastructure is one of the things that government is good at and it's also one of the areas that government has a responsibility to act.
 

Forum List

Back
Top