I'm concerned that if the President creates too many jobs

[Airwolf]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7217608

OMG you have to be kidding me Obama creating too many jobs?  
Only a DUmmy though would see something bad in a scenario that won't happen like this to be a bad thing.
I'd love for too many jobs to be out there.

Yeah it worked so well there are job listings everywhere employers are fighting like hell to get people to work for them.  

Hmmm you guys bitched about deficits and spending when Bush was in office now it's just a right wing smear to point out that Obama has added a hell of a lot to the deficit.

I also love how it's all the repukes fault when they are the minority. Minority means there are less of them which means the dems control everything. You kept crowing about having 60 in the senate and still you cant get what you want. So instead of blaming the 60 you blame the 40. Just like if cap and tax comes to life and you have to pay double in electric bills to post at DU I bet you blame the repukes for that too.

Yep. They are as dumb as a bag of wet cat hair

[Airwolf]

Umm...unemployment has doubled since Obama took office.

What jobs has Obama created so far that the DUmmies are worried about him creating more of?

Pimps,Ho's and other assorted ner do wells that will be leeching off the government tit.

[ColonialMarine0431]

You forgot ACORN members who advise on how to run a child prostituion ring.

[Airwolf]

You forgot ACORN members who advise on how to run a child prostituion ring.

They aren't covered by the ner do well part?

[DumbAss Tanker]

cliffordu  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sun Dec-13-09 01:03 PM
Original message
I'm concerned that if the President creates too many jobs

Wel, that really hasn't been a problem so far.

[The Village Idiot]

He will only create government jobs.

He will destroy the private sector.

Do not worry about your little heads.

[crockspot]

I have my fingers crossed, it looks like my old job may become open again after the holidays. But if not, the current Obama extensions to unemployment will still get me well into the spring melt.

[Rebel]

Um, yeah, I'm wondering when he's going to actually start "creating" these jobs. Anything you DUmmies can tell us? It would be greatly appreciated.

[Oceander]

You forgot ACORN members who advise on how to run a child prostituion ring.

Oh, I've not forgetten about those little turds; no-one with a young daughter can:

[GOBUCKS]

He will on Jan 20th 2013. When President Palin is sworn in. 

Don't count on it. People had it far worse during the Depression. For four years of Roosevelt, things got worse and worse. Yet Roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide, and then steered the economy to undreamt of depths over his second four years. So, after eight years of an accelerating downward economic spiral, what happened? The American people re-elected Roosevelt to the only presidential third term in history. FDR thrived on being a media darling, and the airwaves and print media saturated Americans with fawning descriptions of his brilliance. An entire generation still views him as the man who saved us from the Depression. Sound familiar?

[Oceander]

Don't count on it. People had it far worse during the Depression. For four years of Roosevelt, things got worse and worse. Yet Roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide, and then steered the economy to undreamt of depths over his second four years. So, after eight years of an accelerating downward economic spiral, what happened? The American people re-elected Roosevelt to the only presidential third term in history. FDR thrived on being a media darling, and the airwaves and print media saturated Americans with fawning descriptions of his brilliance. An entire generation still views him as the man who saved us from the Depression. Sound familiar?

Entirely possible, but what matters infinitely more than who wins in 2012 is, do we break the Democrats' control of Congress in 2010, with enough of a margin that we can consistently block most of their stupid, inane bills, or not?  Think of it this way, 2012 is the icing on the cake, nice if you can get it, but not really necessary in order to have a cake.  2010, on the other hand, is the cake.  Losing in 2010 (i.e., not breaking the Democrats' control) and winning in 2012 means the end of this country, period, end of discussion (absent an armed insurrection); losing in 2012 but winning in 2010 means that we still have a chance to peacefully restore this country to its original promise, and while it wouldn't be as neat as having a conservative in the Whitehouse, at least we would all get to enjoy watching a politically gelded Obama scream in impotent rage as we deny him all of the anti-American policies he intends to implement with the concurrence of his handmaidens in the Senate and House.

I, for one, would probably vote for Obama in 2012, given what appears to be the current slate of contenders against him, if we have managed to break the Democrats' control of the Congress with a sufficient margin in 2010.  If we haven't succeeded in breaking their control in 2010, then I really won't be paying much attention to who's running for President in 2012 because I'll be too busy preparing for the socialist armageddon that will be coming down the pike shortly.

[crockspot]

Don't count on it. People had it far worse during the Depression. For four years of Roosevelt, things got worse and worse. Yet Roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide, and then steered the economy to undreamt of depths over his second four years. So, after eight years of an accelerating downward economic spiral, what happened? The American people re-elected Roosevelt to the only presidential third term in history. FDR thrived on being a media darling, and the airwaves and print media saturated Americans with fawning descriptions of his brilliance. An entire generation still views him as the man who saved us from the Depression. Sound familiar?

A few things are different now than they were back then. Americans were more naive about how economics and politics worked. We also have much more widespread access to timely information now. Obama has as much chance of presiding over three terms of depression as I have of crapping out a baby.

[BlueStateSaint]

Oh, I've not forgetten about those little turds; no-one with a young daughter can:

I am so stealing that.  Gillibrand is one of the two that "represent" me.

[Karin]

Regarding what Badcat said about Wall Street loving layoffs:  I remember a segment on Fox once, a little while back.  There was a lib and a cons there.  The cons pointed out this little fact of life, after the lib was crowing about the stock market rebounding and all was sweetness and light under lord zero.  Her jaw dropped, her head asploded, and she was answer-less. 
This is also fun to throw at a troll, should you meet one. 

Outstanding, and justifiably harsh, poster on Gillibrand, BTW.