Obama '08?

This thing about earmarks is so stupid. First, about half come from the Reps. Second, their cost is less than one percent of the total cost of the other provisions. Third, the majority provide very good benefits. If a president has a critical bill before him, I would hope he or she would sign the bill notwithstanding some tiny part of the bill that is objectionable. But leave it to you conservatives to endless harp on the earmarks. I guess you do it because of a lack of valid concerns.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
According to Obama, there would be no lobbyists (current or former) serving in his admin, but there are at least 2 already.

Obama has broken so many promises, and backpedaled so many times, his word has become virtually meaningless. He says next time, no earmarks. Sure sure, Obama, I believe you, ha. And a clear and open administration, what a joke. And he says to the states, I will "call you out" when the states don't spend the money wisely. There are already tons of examples of wasteful spending, and does he care, obviously not, or his idea of wasteful spending is certainly different than most peoples. I suppose giving money to ACORN is money well spent according to Obama. Ha ha, what a laugh. Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

Yes, a lot of people take him seriously.

Will you just accept the fact that he has different policy goals and means of accomplishing them than you would like, and move on? This daily cycle of bitching gets real old.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Advocate,

You got that spot on! The conservatives didn't bitch when Bush never vetoed any earmarks, but now bitch when it represents less than one percent of the total budget. You can't please everyone with any budget, but the conservatives have their heads up their arses when they keep complaining about something that means so little compared to what Bush and the rep congress did during their eight years.

No logic, no common sense, no brains; it figures.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

This thing about earmarks is so stupid. First, about half come from the Reps. Second, their cost is less than one percent of the total cost of the other provisions. Third, the majority provide very good benefits. If a president has a critical bill before him, I would hope he or she would sign the bill notwithstanding some tiny part of the bill that is objectionable. But leave it to you conservatives to endless harp on the earmarks. I guess you do it because of a lack of valid concerns.

First of all, I have always been against excessive spending, and was not happy when Bush signed bills, and I am not at all happy with Republicans getting their share of the pie, but the point is that Obama has lied to us when he said he would stop earmarks. He hasn't, he has done just the opposite. He, lets just say, grossly misrepresented what he would do during the campaign, when debating McCain. Not just this issue, but many.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Where is your goddam brain? Earmarks make up less than one percent of the current budget. You're so f...kg stupid, I wonder where you got your education from, and who your parents are.

0 Replies

@okie,

You mean that he should veto a bill that is critical to the good health of the country just because there is a tiny speck of earmarks therein? Please!!!!!!!!

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Not only that, but most of the earmarks were included by the GOP.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Only 40% of the earmarks came from the repubs.
And that is to much.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

When I said "most," the number of GOP members were in the "majority" who included their earmarks. I think I heard some number like 60/40.

Here:

Quote:

Republican Earmarks Taint Spending Criticism
Kyle Trygstad Kyle Trygstad Fri Mar 13, 3:19 pm ET

While Republicans criticize President Obama for not sticking to a campaign promise to rid government of wasteful spending, the GOP itself is finding trouble getting back to the kind of fiscal discipline its members say disappeared over the last several years they controlled Congress.

Republicans in Congress vilified Democrats for both the overall size and the number of earmarks attached to the $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. However, despite the rhetoric, Republicans requested 40 percent of the earmarks and ranked among the highest pork barrel spenders.

Six of the 10 senators that requested the most earmark dollars were Republicans, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan budget watchdog group. In the House, Republicans accounted for five of the top 10.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Yes he should have vetoed this bill. The government would have then passed a stop gap measure that would have kept the lights on.

And this is from a person who voted for Obama in LARGE part because of what he said he'd do about wasteful government spending.

He let me down here.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche, How can you say that without knowing what the bills are for? According to what I heard (may be wrong), Obama said they were carry-overs from last year.

Also, you should know how Washington works; you must get favors in order to give favors. Most governments works that way.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They were signed by OBAMA, not BUSH. I don't care when the congressperson asked for them. They've got Obama's name on them now.

And, I really don't care what they're for. We just borrowed another 5 billion dollars for earmarks. In addition to the, what 3 trillion now?, that we've borrowed to try to fix the economy.

When is the **** going to stop CI?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

(Time out for a moment. Maporsche, your buddies in the A2K Fantasy Baseball League want to know if you will come back to join us for another season. You finished in a strong 5th position last year. We hope you will play.
Realjohnboy = Rappin' Rednecks)

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I PM'd ya.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

According to Obama, with the next budget process. We shall see, but to be realistic, it's what the American people wants; not what a minority wants to see.

Pork/earmarks have always been part of Washington DC's politics; I'm not sure that'll ever end.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I don't think the american people want earmarks though CI...I mean, I recall a lot of us bitching about them during the Bush administration.

Part of me is just pissed that we're doing this while borrowing the money. A growing part of me thinks that all deficit spending needs to be voted on by people who are going to be expected to pay it back. Nothing against those of us who are advanced in years, but it's not like you'll be paying back this debt. Those of us under 40 WILL be.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Also, don't forget; Obama still has over 60% approval rating - even with the earmarks.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It's not like the earmarks are getting a lot of play anywhere but Fox news though CI.

The MM loves this guy.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I go further than you do on not only earmarks, but all that bailout of companies that we should let go bankrupt. Management screwed up; they deserve to drown in their own incompetence. The only problem is we can't let the banks sink, because no capitalistic economy can survive without banks. Not too many can purchase cars or homes with cash.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Doesn't matter; it's impressions that counts. Most are ignorant about what really goes on in Washington. We live with "this" condition no matter who runs Washington.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know