Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All these links to the whitehouse.gov site have nothing to do with the campaign. It was during his campaign that he was so clear he would go line by line over bills crossing his desk to be sure they would not spend money recklessly.
I guess it could be argued that these earmarks are not reckless, but I think worrying about blueberries, honeybees, and the like, is kind of reckless during a time when we don't have any money!!!!
I have seen Obama clips on TV talking about going line by line over bills to make sure there is no wasteful spending on earmarks, but I have not found those clips yet. It's not worth it to me to spend any more time looking than I have because it won't change anyone's mind anyway, but here are a few links about it (understand that I hate links and rarely post them, but here goes anyway):
And then there's this which took place since he became President. The first is when he visited Indiana and Florida to push through his stimulus with Townhall meetings. Is he kidding?
All these links to the whitehouse.gov site have nothing to do with the campaign. It was during his campaign that he was so clear he would go line by line over bills crossing his desk to be sure they would not spend money recklessly.
You seriously misunderstand the issue. The line-by-line promise has nothing at all to do with appropriations bills (such as the omnibus bill) that the Congress sends to the President. He can only sign or veto those. He cannot edit them. What line-by-line does refer to is the President's development of his own new budget proposal each year that he then sends to the Congress. In developing those, he is free to go through the existing budget line-by-line and eliminate any program he feels is not justified. You might remember Obama's talking about $2 trillion over ten years that his budget team has already eliminated from the FY 2010 budget proposal when he spoke to the nation on the economy. That is the line-by-line process referred to.
At no time did Obama run on the premise of being against earmarks of any kind. Your earlier statement to that effect is simply incorrect. If you knew that it was incorrect, then you were lying. If you did not know that it was incorrect, then you were merely mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMolly
And then there's this which took place since he became President. The first is when he visited Indiana and Florida to push through his stimulus with Townhall meetings. Is he kidding?
There were zero earmarks in the stimulus bill. None at all. Every dime of it went through the normal committee mark-up and amendment processes that comprise the standard means for providing appropriations. People who tell you any differently are also either lying or mistaken.
Hmmm. Seems like we have another right-winger who can't tell the difference between a budget and a stimulus bill. The purpose of the budget is to get actual funding for actual programs out to the actual departments that aren't DOD, DHS, or DVA. There isn't any borrowing attached to it. It's just a funding bill.
And this is most definitely not Bush's budget. One of the purposes of it in fact is to begin filling in the gaps that Bush's budgets created. But quite plainly to anyone who has been paying attention, this is not Obama's budget either. The bulk of it was developed before he was elected, much less inaugurated. The first Obama budget will be that for FY 2010. Should be out in April.
No, in drafting his own budget proposal, a President is not obliged to include funds for all programs that were included in the prior year budget. That is, he can go through that expiring budget line by line and cross out or defund any programs he thinks are not needed or are not wise uses of the government's money. Once his budget has been reviewed and approved by Congress and worked up into the various authorizing and appropriating bills, the President has no line-item authority at all.
Can you show us the earmarks in any of the bills included in the omnibus spending package signed last night that Senator Obama put there?
you are totally missing the big picture since both items are being discussed on this forum. congress has just passed one of the largest borrow-and-spend bills in our history. if this were not enough, H.R. 1105 is growing the size of government by another 8 percent, so with the so-called stimulus bill this makes fiscal year 2009 almost 80 percent more expensive to the American taxpayer than last year.
americans have a right to be disgusted by this waste! this is not just a republican complaint. a lot of americans are getting disgusted with the way that our country seems to be going.
you are totally missing the big picture since both items are being discussed on this forum. congress has just passed one of the largest borrow-and-spend bills in our history. if this were not enough, H.R. 1105 is growing the size of government by another 8 percent, so with the so-called stimulus bill this makes fiscal year 2009 almost 80 percent more expensive to the American taxpayer than last year.
americans have a right to be disgusted by this waste! this is not just a republican complaint. a lot of americans are getting disgusted with the way that our country seems to be going.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. nowhere in the OP does it say anything about the stimulus package, OP is referring to earmarks in FY Budget 2010. Obama to lay out guidelines to overhaul earmarks I thought this thread was about the budget, and NOT about the stimulus package. not about the stimulus, which may have another thread started, but not in this topic subject.
Quote:
(CNN) -- President Obama on Wednesday will talk about new guidelines aimed at cutting down the number of earmarks in appropriations legislation, one day after the Senate passed a spending bill with nearly 9,000 earmarks, his administration said.
Some lawmakers have urged Obama to veto the $410 billion omnibus spending bill -- saying it goes against the president's campaign pledge to bring an end to wasteful spending.-------------------
Obama may sign the bill into law behind closed doors rather than make a public show of it, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
So now signing behind closed doors to hide from the fact that he again broke a campaign promiss and to sneak out after getting all the pork on our plate! What a disappointment this man is...more than I ever could have imagined!!!
And he lives in the White House, holds press conferences, and signs bills! All things that Bush did! There is no change at all...this Obama is just a copycat...right???
I was referring to the SPENDING. I admit the Bush Administration mis spent and mis manged.
President Obama, knew we were in debt, so why would he spend more at a time when people are going broke. He held the Senate seat and knew fully well the condition of our country.
Oh, wait he was late often to meetings, maybe he did miss, what was going on, while he was getting coffee or that last cigarette.
highdesertmutz, I disagree. The topic is definitely about what was promised and what is being delivered. Obama said during the campaign that he would overhaul earmarks and he's being hypocritical when he tries to spin that he's doing that when he's not!!!
WhoMe, did I say "end or outlaw"? If I did I apologize because he certainly never said that. I believe I said that Obama promised he would go through bills crossing his desk "line by line" and eliminate wasteful spending/earmarks. I stand by my statement that he said during his campaign that he would not sign such a bill. He has since "rewritten" his remarks, but that is what he said. I heard him say it and applauded at the time.
Obama said then and now that he would overhaul earmarks in spending bills even as he laid pen to paper to sign a bill full of 8500 earmarks containing wasteful spending! That's the point here. You cannot sign a bill with 8500 earmarks while saying you're going overhaul them. The two just don't go hand in hand!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
You seriously misunderstand the issue. .....................
No, I misunderstand nothing. You can spin it in a hundred different directions and it still comes out the same.
What we saw of Obama during the campaign is NOT what we're getting. There is agreement on that across party lines.
While I did not vote for Obama, I'll be honest and admit that when he was elected I was almost relieved. My support was not fully for McCain and I really had high hopes that Obama would be all that he promised .... someone new and fresh in Washington.
But he's not. It's just more of the same. And I'm terribly disappointed. You should be, too. But if it makes you feel better to defend him right or wrong, you're certainly within your rights to do it.
Just remember that in the end it isn't about Republicans or Democrats, it's about Americans and the future of our country. We all win or fail as a result of the choices our leaders make.
For all those going back in time and bashing Bush (just one more time), Bush is not the issue here. We can criticize Bush all we want, but the barn door shut on that. Obama promised "change" in government and so far we're not getting that.
Unfortunately I have no ability to accept or reject money coming into Florida. If I did, I would reject it absolutely. We're forced to cut expenses personally and I would do the same for the state until the country gets back on its feet. But it's not my call.
I know I wrote both my senators and got the standard form letter basically saying they're going to do what they're going to do and I don't understand.
People keep voting the same people back in because the majority really don't think it through. They vote for the faces they recognize. That's why I'm for term limits.
The Democrat controlled Congress made the decision last fall to put off a vote on the 2009 budget until after the election in order to get additional spending on social programs. Their feeling at the time was that Bush would make good his threat to veto any budget that would exceed his spending limits.
So the 2009 budget that is before Congress now is not "Bush's budget" though we are told time and time again that it is.
As far as this outrageous spending bill, it doesn't matter who put the earmarks in. Republicans put in 40% of them, Democrats 60%.
They can't just be picked over;
they would instead have to be removed entirely as Obama promised
and as he has the power to do!
He could have made an amazing statement by vetoing this and telling Congress to come back with a plan with no earmarks whatsoever. Take charge, be the leader you promised to be.
Yesterday, before signing what he called an "imperfect" bill and retreating behind closed doors to do it, Obama reminded me of parents who threaten their children .... "you do this one more time and you're grounded for a week". But the underlying message remains that they got away with it this time and the likelihood is they'll get away with it the next time.
The jury is out and time will tell. But so far, it's very disappointing to see business as usual in Washington when we were promised so much more.
See bolded above. He never promised that and NO one has ever shown he did.....I posted what he really did say.
What you don't understand is the extreme problems in our country and the need to fix them quickly....to veto that bill and start over means hardships for many , many people....just not you, you're fine , so like a true repub you think nothing should be done for anyone else.....glad Obama doesn't belive that.
Repubs didn't care when bush spent their children's taxes on a war ..and HID the cost.
Repubs didn't mind when the Wealthy Welfare Queens of Wall St. got money....and now, as always , wail and moan because NOW average Americans who need the most help will be helped....why do Republicans HATE the middle class and the poor so much and Worship War and the Wealthy???
I wonder how many people contacted their respective senator(s) to register their unhappiness with the largesse that these same elected officials are about to bestow on their states.
I wonder how many people will not vote for these same senators next time their terms are up?
If there is so much unhappiness and disgust over the jobs these people are doing, why do they keep getting elected?
GOOD QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!I have written to all I can and I know tons and tons of people who have. Our elected clowns could care less about the people. I wonder about the elections. Take that Nancy girl. I was raised in CA and I know of no one that has ever voted for her. How in the world did she get elected. I bet the cemetaries know.
highdesertmutz, I disagree. The topic is definitely about what was promised and what is being delivered. Obama said during the campaign that he would overhaul earmarks and he's being hypocritical when he tries to spin that he's doing that when he's not!!!
WhoMe, did I say "end or outlaw"? If I did I apologize because he certainly never said that. I believe I said that Obama promised he would go through bills crossing his desk "line by line" and eliminate wasteful spending/earmarks. I stand by my statement that he said during his campaign that he would not sign such a bill. He has since "rewritten" his remarks, but that is what he said. I heard him say it and applauded at the time.
Obama said then and now that he would overhaul earmarks in spending bills even as he laid pen to paper to sign a bill full of 8500 earmarks containing wasteful spending! That's the point here. You cannot sign a bill with 8500 earmarks while saying you're going overhaul them. The two just don't go hand in hand!!!
No, I misunderstand nothing. You can spin it in a hundred different directions and it still comes out the same.
What we saw of Obama during the campaign is NOT what we're getting. There is agreement on that across party lines.
While I did not vote for Obama, I'll be honest and admit that when he was elected I was almost relieved. My support was not fully for McCain and I really had high hopes that Obama would be all that he promised .... someone new and fresh in Washington.
But he's not. It's just more of the same. And I'm terribly disappointed. You should be, too. But if it makes you feel better to defend him right or wrong, you're certainly within your rights to do it.
Just remember that in the end it isn't about Republicans or Democrats, it's about Americans and the future of our country. We all win or fail as a result of the choices our leaders make.
did any of you who disagree with the Obama Presidency ever, ever bother to check the links I posted? the President is working on the problem. but I will throw this out at you. both, democrats and republicans love their earmarks, it is partially how they acquire funding for projects in the states/constituant districts they represent. please, check out the white house dot gov links, and see what President Obama is trying to do. don't get onto a forum and spout more lies. find the truth for yourselves. Welcome to the White House
I know what the topic is about, please. nowhere in the OP does it say anything about stimulus, it is about the budget earmarks, can you all read please, and stop taking typed statements and dissecting them, putting certain things in while omitting parts the whole thing. quit trying to conveniently leave things out. when you do this, your argument and points are mute.
Last edited by highdesertmutz; 03-13-2009 at 07:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this not being taught in school any more????
