I wanted to give the OP of this thread the opportunity to state her case which I believe to have been heartfelt and sincere (if a bit naive). But, now that she has had that opportunity and the thread is veering off-topic, I think it's time to lock the thread. Those of you who wish to debate abortion are welcome to do so in the political forum.

This thread was posted twice. Please use the other one:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/205539.page

Anonymous wrote:
Jsteele - feel free to shut this thread down now if you deem it necessary, as I've gotten plenty of useful responses and am not interested in engaging in any moral debate right now.

Will do.

Let's please halt the abortion debate in this thread. People who want to engage in such a debate are welcome to move to the political forum. The OP is asking for those who have been in her position to share their experiences. Posts that do not address that issue will no longer be tolerated in this thread. If anyone would like to comment on my intervention in this thread, please do it in the Website Feedback forum as such posts are also unwelcome in this thread

Advertising and sock puppetting. It must be two for one day at DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:
I think you are confusing incidental job creation with focusing on job creation. The links above show that Obama began "focusing" on job creation in August 2011. Before that he focused on the stimulus, Obamacare, debt and his golf game. You may want to call the stimulus a jobs bill, but the fact remains that the White House announced in was focusing on jobs in August 2011.

If you are suggesting that a stimulus bill which was measured in terms of "jobs created and saved" had job creation as only an "incidental" impact, you are ignoring reality.

I previously asked you what you believed to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill. You responded with data showing that jobs had been created by that bill. Now, you are accusing me of confusion. So, I would like to pose the question again. Please explain in a few short sentences, no reason to copy and paste from other websites or your crazy uncle's latest chain email, what you believe to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill.

Editing to add: Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported on the signing of the stimulus bill:

"Mr. Obama touted the measure's investments in health care, infrastructure, energy, education and, most importantly, job creation, as well as a variety of tax cuts. "

"The White House also distributed information showing projected job growth by state and congressional district."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

Anonymous wrote:
So where did most of the money REALLY go to? Put it this way -- the unions aren't complaining. Public employee unions had their pensions bailed out by Obama so they can retire at age 50.

So, you agree that the stimulus bill created jobs, albeit at a very high cost.

Your numbers are a bit out of date. If you go to recovery.gov right now, you will see the following figures:

$733.2B paid out

Tax Benefits: $300.1B
Contracts, Grants, and Loans: $217.7B
Entitlements: $215.4B

While tax cuts are a very poor stimulus method, not all of the tax benefits were cuts. There was $35.4 billion in tax incentives to hire employees and $9.6 billion to assist manufacturing.

But, the bottom line for you -- and for me as well -- is that while the stimulus bill was not as effective as it might have been, it still created jobs. You are hung up on the fact that it was not called a jobs bill, yet the government has consistently measured it in terms of "jobs saved and created." Obviously, such a measure would not be used for something that was not expected to positively impact jobs.

At any rate, I believe the data you present puts to rest any claim that Obama did not focus on jobs until August 2011.

Anonymous wrote:
Of course Obama mentioned jobs in the past, but he did not focus to job creation until August 2011 -- after 70+ rounds of golf:

Can you please tell me what you believe to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill?

Anonymous wrote:
Hmmmm .. So the dotcom bust and 9-11 are a "royal flush" -- now THAT'S an interesting take. Even so, I don't think Bush was a good President and I didn't vote for him.

Yes, compared to the near collapse of the entire global financial industry that Obama received as a welcoming gift, the dot com bust was a royal flush. Bush did not inherit 9-11. It happened on his watch after he ignored warnings from his advisors.

What makes you think that Hillary would have done any better? That's simply looking at things through rose-colored glasses. Obama's biggest flaw has been his willingness to hire Clinton's advisors. Hillary would have hired exactly the same people, or even worse. The entire Democratic leadership is beholden to Wall Street. Hillary worst then most. It's not simply a problem of individuals, but an institutional one.

Anonymous wrote:Obama is the worst president Jimmy Carter. How can people not see that

I am no fan of Obama, but this is simply ridiculous. Simply compare Obama to George W. Bush. Bush entered office having been left record budget surpluses. He left office leaving record budget deficits. Bush got us into two useless wars. His tax cuts account for the greatest portion of deficit growth. Bush ignored a written report saying that Bin Laden was determined to strike within the US and then failed to bring Bin Laden to justice despite having over 7 years to do so. Bush went from the bluster of "Wanted Dead or Alive" to "He's not that important".

Bush was dealt a royal flush but somehow managed to lose both his pants and shirt (or more accurately, our pants and shirt). Obama was dealt a very weak hand, has made a series of bad bets and proved to be completely unable to bluff. But, despite his errors, he has not even come close to wrecking things as badly as Bush.

You guys are right. I've removed the names. The day she posted here, the original poster sent the same story to the DCUM mailing list and the Crestwood mailing list -- both of which I administer. She also mailed the story to a number of other mailing lists. So, I felt her identity was pretty well established. Also, if she has filed a complaint, her identity would be known. But, it's best to be consistent within the DCUM forums. Thanks for prodding me about it.

I remember back in the late 1980s when I was protesting Apartheid in South Africa. I supported the divestment movement and encouraged US corporations to pull out of South Africa. The counter argument was always, "But these corporations try to make conditions better for black South Africans. If they leave, things will even be worse." In the end, divestment was an effective tool and while it may have increased suffering in the short term (and even that is debatable), it helped improve things in the long term. The same is true here. You can limit you focus to the jobs being temporarily halted -- and this is probably one of the rare circumstances that the OP ever cared about unionized labor -- or you could look at the bigger picture.

Anonymous wrote:1-800-got-junk, but you pay (and they are not the cheapest--easiest, fastest, but not cheapest).

Second this. The service is great and very fast.

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Because Obama campaigned on taxing earners making over $200,000. That's our family. Oh yeah, and the reason he doesn't take off time from his job? Because he would lose his job. He works for a private firm, not the government.

Obama's current proposal is for a tax increase on those making over $1 million.

During the campaign, Obama supported keeping the Bush tax cuts -- which were due to expire -- for the lower tax brackets. Congress ended up extending all the Bush tax cuts for another year. If Obama's campaign proposal had become law -- and the upcoming expiration will provide another opportunity for it -- taxes would return to pre-Bush levels for individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000. However, this increase is just 3.6% and only affects those dollars above $200,000 or $250,000. So, unless you are significantly above those levels, you would hardly notice.

Are you sure Siri is turned on? The phone comes with Siri off. Voice Command is turned on and you might think that is Siri, but it's not nearly as good.

Here is a good explanation of what you need to do:

Do note that when you get your phone up and running, Siri isn’t set up to run by default. You’ll need to go to settings and turn it on. You’ll find Siri under General in settings. There you get the option to use the “raise to speak” feature. If you ask Siri for directions, Siri will respond that you first to need to turn on Location Services for Siri. You’ll find Siri listed under Location Services on the main settings screen. I’m guessing a lot of folks will be trying Siri out as soon as they are up and running. But if you don’t turn it on all you get is Voice Command. Interesting that Siri isn’t on by default."

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/10/14/iphone-4s-first-impressions-and-turning-on-siri/