Where is the US economy headed?

Obviously it saved jobs. How could it not. That's not the point. It is whether saving the jobs that were saved has a cost in other jobs, now and in the future, and in which parts of the economy.

That jump to 10.2% unemployment within the last couple of weeks is a consequence of several hundred thousand people losing their jobs within the last couple of weeks.

Obama has declared, and probably will declare again, that his policies have saved jobs! Obviously his policies haven't saved enough jobs.

Assuming Swarzenegger is correct, then the 100,000 jobs added in California because of $5.3 billion in federal stimulus money spent to date, were not enough to offset much greater job losses elsewhere.

The job loss trend is decidedly downwards from the worst recession since the great depression. You are too ignorant to understand any of this.

stimulus plan = save jobs

Simple formula for those who understand simple logic.

stimulus plan = lost jobs

Simple truth for those unafraid to understand the truth.

wealth REDistribution = lost jobs and lost liberty.

Simple truth for those unafraid to understand the truth.

You keep saying , but have failed to show us where and what.

Nah; it's a Simple lie for Simpletons like yourself to lap up. You have no proof of this at all.



See above.

Cycloptichorn

Gov Ahnold of California claimed it saved jobs in our state. What's your source? Your puny brain?

The Sacramento Bee (it's a California newspaper, I think) had an article on the 110,000 jobs "saved" claim on 11/6. (sacbee/com)

Define a "saved" job.
The govt says that if you get a raise, that counts as a partial saved job.
The govt claimed that 900+ jobs were "saved" at a place that only has 500 employees.
So, how were those other jobs "saved"?

I have a job hauling coal, did the govt "save" my job?

So, what is the criteria for determining if a job was "saved" or not?

"Save jobs" is self-explanatory. Where did you learn English?

FALSE!

I have provided you many links and excerpts to "where and what."
You showed yourself "where and what" when you observed that there were allegedly 100,000 jobs created in California by Stimulus money.

Now try to get it straight this time.

When the feds transfer money collected in the form of taxes from taxpayers who lawfully earned it, and transferred it to people who did not lawfully earn it, that is wealth REDistribution. You observed some wealth that was REDistributed: it is the money collected from taxpayers and given to the State of California for the purpose of creating jobs. Had that wealth been left to the taxpayers that lawfully earned it, they would have invested it or purchased stuff with it that would have prevented so many net jobs from being lost.

What you have provided is the links to the legislation without showing where in the legislation the government will control health care.

What you can do is cut and paste from the legislation to show us where in the legislation it speaks to the issue of government control of health care.

We're still waiting.

No need for you to have waited. Over the last few week I have posted several excerpts and links made by other people from legislation that speaks to TARP and STIMULUS issues of wealth REDistribution, AND to the issue of government control of HEALTHCARE.

Either you haven't read them, did not understand them, do not wish to acknowledge them, or, for some strange reason, you are insisting that I personally cut and past the excerpts myself. Whatever your problem is, I think it amusing.

I don't want "other people's" opinion about the health care legislation. I want to "see" the parts of the legislation that speaks to the issue of health care control by the government.

Your are not only dense, but stupid!

You actually want me to believe you are incapable of going to the House and Senate healthcare bill links and seeing those parts for yourself
........................................ ~~~~ !????! ~~~~
........................................ ~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
...........................................~~~ (\ O /) ~~~.

No, you're the one who claimed the legislation has government control of health care. It's up to you to prove it; not for me to prove your claim.

You are really that stupid! You claim something; it's up to you to prove it.

ican, if this legislative push was not about government control of health care, there would be no need for any legislation, at least no sweeping legislation. Examples of minor reform might be in regard to insurance portability from job to job or across state line, or tort reform, or how income tax incentives are structured. Reform could also address the fact that illegal immigrants are sucking alot of resources from the health industry, especially in some areas, and this needs addressing. We also have a situation where some people that can afford insurance are not buying it, and some that can use Medicaid are not doing it, those issues could be addresssed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I agree, it is totally obvious that this reform is all about the end game of the United States government gaining more control and growing the government bureaucracies already existing or creating new ones, all of which will take away more personal liberty, increase government power over our lives, and increase taxes and likely deficits and the national debt.

okie, Please show us where any part of the legislation talks about government control of health care. You are also too stupid to understand plain English. If you claim something within any legislation, it's up to you to prove it by copy and paste of any section that it has government control of health care.

It's show and tell time; we're waiting.

Worth posting again to make a point that remains pertinent. That is we need to vote the Dems out of office next year to reverse the trend.