The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

Excuse me? You mean the Republicans have to allow serious cuts in spending. The President has already offered multiple spending cuts, the Republicans have refused them.

Cantor and the Tea Party idiots are the ones preventing anything from being voted upon. Boehner doesn't have the votes in his caucus to pass anything, even with the Dems on his side, because he's held hostage by Cantor and the Tea Party types.

A clean debt ceiling raise needs to be passed with the one-sentence bill it always has been in the past, as it was passed 7 times by these guys in the Bush administration, and before that.

We are paying the net debt back. We don't need to cut future spending to continue do so. Future spending is a separate thing unassociated with the debt ceiling. It certainly needs to be reined in.

The debt ceiling limit is a minor housekeeping accounting procedure that allows cash flow to pay our bills. It is not a reference "ceiling" for future spending when budgets are prepared.

As I said, it's apparent that you didn't watch it. Or else, your understanding of verbal discussion is as inventive as your reading comprehension.

You can watch it on CSpan.org.

Similar to an individual checking account used to pay household bills and expenses.

If that individual has maxed out his own credit cards/borrowing against his 401K/IRA and is now receiving credit based on his children's future earnings and borrowing money he'll never pay back from his wealthier neighbors. :zz:

As I said, I'm quite happy with Obama. Obama 2012.

No. The debt ceiling is nothing at all like a checking account. Nor is it a credit card.

It must be very easy for you to comment on the issues of the day, while knowing nothing at all about them.

as I said I watched it live. It was sickening the first time and does not warrant a second viewing.

Good for you. The majority of the country thankfully is not.

And thankfully the rest of the country isn't as naive as you.

you and maybe 4 others

Looks like $86 million others for Obama
$18 million for Romney
$4.2 million for Pawlenty
$2.5 million for Cain (alot of that from himself)
$1.4 million for Palin, who, it has been revealed today, spent PAC money on her "personal vacation" bus tour

Better not let him know that. He'll have it spent/wasted by dinner tonight.

So which package do you like better: Obama's $4 trillion in cuts, or the $2 trillion in cuts?

As I said, you are naive. Increased taxes are increased taxes not cuts. Savings reaped by consolidating medicare and Obamacare are fiction. That leaves $700 billion in non-discretionary spending and $400 billion further cuts in defense. So the $4 trillion is in reality $1.1 trillion and over 12 years. That's less than a paltry $100 billion a year. Which do you think I like better? :zz:

It's pretty clear that you didn't actually watch the press conference, and your knowlege of public policy is not much more than a Sarah Palin-like word soup.

if there's a 'sucker born everyday' you were born over a 3-day holiday.

Dell said, "Obama made it very clear today he is not into cutting anything".
"I did [watch the press conference] that's how I know instead of proposing cuts he gave excuses why we can't."

Except that within the first three minutes, Obama called for cuts to the discretionary budget, defense spending, and alterations to Medicare, for a 10-year plan of savings.

then why was the house version of the appropriations bill, which is higher than fiscal '11, 9 billion LESS than obama's request?? how is he in favor of cutting, if his was higher then theirs, which is almost 3% higher than last years?? that doesn't make sense.
but then, if you're happy with someone who is trying to put the kibosh on something he is supposedly in favor of (dadt) then i guess he doesn't have to make any sense at all where you're concerned.
as for spending elsewhere, one of his first moves was to increase budgets across the board in government agencies.

the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Zig, the only possible thing in the entire world that Obama can do to make Riot dislike him is put an (R) next to his name.

:zz: We are talking about what Obama said at his press conference today. Not previous Republican budget proposals coming out of the House. Obama has nothing to do with creating the opposing party's appropriations bills.

Huh? Excuse me? Sense? You are trying to compare what Obama said today to a previous GOP appropriations bill! That's beyond absurd. :D

I'm not as black and white as you appear to be. I said I was happy with Obama, and yes, indeed, I am. Will definitely vote for him again 2012 at this point. I have also clearly said here previously that I am not happy with everything he's done, including some of the DADT. But DADT is passed, isn't it? That's the first step to implementation. Any chance of that under McCain-Palin? Never in a million years.

LOL - yeah, your blanket statement works, if we just ignore the times I've said I've not liked something Obama has done.

Obama is pretty centrist. He's not far from an old-fashioned (R) now. The Republicans today yes, indeed, do suck compared to the Republicans of yesteryear. They have moved so far off to the right they are a mere shell of their former party.

Then don't vote? Run yourself? Pick another candidate?

This is America. You are allowed to have your own opinion. Others are going to disagree with you. Get over it.

when i said about kiboshing your own stuff, i was talking about him and his admin asking the judge to back off on dadt-something he's supposed to be for getting rid of.
and it's funny you think i'm 'black and white' when i'm anything but. as for what came out of the house, i posted the link just a few days ago, along with the vote count, and that the spending bill is said to be lower than what obama asked for. that's why i question it when he keeps saying he's for cuts, but his actions don't really show that. and it's not as though all of this just came out of the blue-which is why i know it's just more game-playing now, and both parties trying to score points, while trying to show how haaard they're all working-it's all just a show.

get over what? i always vote, i did pick another candidate. it's funny you tell me to get over it, when it's all just discussion anyway-which i understand we're all free to have, aren't we?

and no, i'm not happy with obama. i don't call him a disgrace, or the countless other disparaging titles i've seen on here. i also freely admit when he does something i agree with, such as his ideas on pell grants a few months back. i thought getting rid of dadt was a great idea-but he seems to be back-pedaling on that, which i think is a shame.
as for his spending, his ideas are right there. he seems to be doing the d.c. two step on that as well as his dadt maneuvers. but then, i've been a harsh critic of the republicans as well. i'm not quite sure what you're deal is about my statements-i think i'm pretty fair-and broad-minded on these issues.

Yes, I understood that. I am not happy with that, as I've said before.

I agree, all sides play alot of games.

I am, however, fed up with the game the Tea Party House caucus is playing with the debt ceiling, blanketly saying "no" (although some members may be waivering over into logic and responsibility today)

those tea partiers are something else-i wonder how long they'll be around.

Did you see King, Gohmert and Bachmann hold a press conference yesterday saying that the Treasury, the President and Boehner are just lying to the country about the debt ceiling?

It's all just our imagination, you know!

And Bachmann's husband today made a statement that he never called gays "barbarians" on that tape of him talking. That the tape was doctored.

Just found this interesting analysis (long) on the Tea Party compared to the Republican Party. They are about 1/3 of those identifying as GOP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_899901.html

i dont watch much tv at all, certainly not a press conference with that twit! i get most of my info reading online on various sites,wsj, cnn, msnbc, slate, time, etc

posted previously

I think you left out some but I did watch the idiot and also know his numbers behind it. Perhaps you could have come up with something better than

Sybil like? Is that a pre-existing condition you're keeping from us?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43773068...-capitol_hill/

House passes energy bill $6B below Obama's request
White House: bill jeopardizes economic growth and clean energy

WASHINGTON — As lawmakers argued over long-term deficit reduction, the Republican-led House on Friday cut 20 percent from President Barack Obama's budget request for energy and water projects.



now, as has been said so often, everyone recognizes that we have to spend less...
so, what are the thoughts on this? it seems that many say we need to cut, but then howl in protest when something does get cut.

Well, just don't drink the water ... companies can go back to poisoning it, now.

We really are being set back decades by the current Republican House. Hopefully this won't pass the Senate.

Found something fun with the debt ceiling. Washington Post has a tool where you can choose what to pay with the limited money we have. Be sure to click on what you didn't pay, "show what you left out", to see who you are starving! It's pretty sobering. And literally life-threatening. This country is in big trouble. We have too many jobless, homeless, starving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...who-gets-paid/

but like i said, cuts need to be made. exactly where do you think they should occur? i would think if they could reduce each dept by, say, 5%, that would be beneficial, wouldn't it? we can't say cuts have to happen, but not actually cut anything.

I could go with 3-5% across the board. We do need to get future spending under control.

But we need to raise income to help pay for what we took for free (charged and borrowed) in the 1990's. Because not only do we owe that, we owe the interest on it. That's what is killing us now.

(Charging stimulus during recession is a valid and advised financial move, always has been - so that doesn't bother me much).

I like eliminating alot of the tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code to raise revenue. But one of the biggest things that put us in the deep hole were the Bush tax cuts. That did it more than the unfunded Medicare Rx giveaway or the unpaid for wars.

I think Obama was dead wrong not to let them expire for the rich previously (due to the slow recession I can see holding them for lower incomes). Because at this point, he's going to have to let them expire for the rich, and also perhaps let them expire for lower incomes, and we're still in a slow recession recovery. So any changes to the tax code and gained revenues won't be extra, it will cover letting the lower incomes keep the tax cuts another 2 years.

Our revenues are too low, our GDP is too low.

We don't have a massive "spending" problem that put us in the hole. We have a "we spent billions and billions over years without paying for it" problem. Now the bill for that is here. And the GOP doesn't want to pay it.

Sure, we should rein in our spending. But that alone won't pay for the billions and billions we spend on the charge card in the past 10 years. We have to raise revenue to pay that down.

And I am very upset with the current Republican party plan that is literally trying to remove all regulation from business: EPA, FDA, etc. Those laws exist for a reason. The GOP has never seen such an opportunity to allow business free rein to rape this country for every remaining cent they can get, from privatizing Medicare via "vouchers" to Michigan removing voter rights and sending in "managers" to take over towns and sell land to private developer friends. And they are frantically trying to do.The Supreme Court and Citizens United has set the tone for what matters in this country. And that's scary for American citizens. Real wages haven't gone up in decades. Most of the wealth of this country is in the hands of a few. The middle class is being eliminated.

We are not going forward as a country, our riches are being stolen from us by a few in power, and the majority of the citizens of this country are literally being left on their own, with nobody giving a damn about them. I am not optimistic about the next 20 years, unless we have a massive, sudden turnaround. And I do think we are verging on a significant social upheaval comparable to what happened during the Vietnam war. And it will happen in concert with the next Presidential election, and it will be ugly.