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.
FY 2009 began on October 1, 2008. The reason that the FY 2009 budget is being passed now instead of last Fall is that it ISN'T a continuation of Bush's budget. He would have vetoed it, and not because of the earmarks that his party made into high art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
IF
Democrats place all blame for current economic crisis on policies and budgets of Bush...
Well, it would actually be whoever was in charge during 2002-06 as this crisis built up to beyond the boiling point. I suppose you do remember who was running the show during the big buildup? The housing market began to crack in early 2006, the financial markets in early 2007, and the Main Street economy in early 2008. I suppose you remember who did nothing much about any of that except of course to insist that the fundamentals of the economy were sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
IF
Obama signs this budget (when he could veto it)
Can't veto it and ever get an actual budget for FY 2009. The party of Just Say No to Everything would make sure of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
THEN
Current crisis is Obama's fault, as his signature is defacto acceptance of Bush's budget.
Amazing...that budget just became official last night, and already it's affecting things that happened years ago. The excuse-making on the right ever soars to new heights of absurdity. Why not just accept the fact that having already accomplished a screw-up for the ages in Iraq, you all went yourselves one better by then crashing the global financial system. Nice freaking work by you guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
He could have sent it back and at least gained a little respect from the Right.
First, who would actually want the respect of the right? Just look at the list of people who have it. Is there any reason at all to want to be counted among that group??? Second, the right has been trained to hate and slander Obama and to work against anything and everything he might seek to do without any regard at all for whether his ideas are necessary or helpful to people or generally good for the country or for the world. Just plain blind opposition to everything is the right-wing agenda and order of the day. You can't really reason with such people. Maybe Charles Krauthammer will favor us now with an article on Obama Derangement Syndrome. Do you think?
Last edited by saganista; 03-12-2009 at 06:24 AM..
I thought right-wingers were completely irrational during the Bush administration. Obama is making them look like they were bastions of insightful thinking back in those days. New frontiers in La-La Land are being discovered every day. Way to go, guys.
Meanwhile, just as he promised he would do during the campaign and since the election YOUR President will be laying out his ideas for ways in which the Congress can put the earmark process onto better and more transparent ground. Earmarks are a legislative matter so he doesn't have any final say, but he can set targets and objectives that he thinks those on the hill should pursue. We'll see how that works out, your guys random complaints about whatever happens as the result being duly ignored and discarded along the way. Make yourselves irrelevant and that is what you will be...
There is no transparency in the Obamanation, just like all the rest. Why don't you enlighten us and show us where he has kept his promise of transparency. Just a lot of broken promises, business as usual, and smoke and mirrors.
No, he didn't. McCain said during the campaign that he thought earmarks should be eliminated. He was the other guy in that race. The loser...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
And today, minutes before Obama laid out his proposals to reform the earmark process, House leaders were offering recommendations of their own in an effort to deflect his. Meanwhile, Pelosi and her chief deputy, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), have made clear to Team Obama that Congress, not the White House, will decide how to write its spending bills, thank you very much. In an interview with reporters last week, Hoyer said: I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do. I hope you all got that down. Maybe the honeymoon is over.
Wake up, over there. Responsibility for earmarks and for everything else associated with the drafting of spending bills is Constitutionally vested in the Congress. The President may make recommendations, Congress makes the decisions. It's been that way for rather a long time. Two centuries and change should have been enough time for you to catch on.
"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama said, adding that he would use it as a "departure point" for enacting new reforms.
^ This comment by Obama is the biggest load of crap. If it is "imperfect" then Obama's job, along with Congress is to work harder to TRY to perfect it.
If Obama thinks his job is just to hold a pen in hand and sign everything that crosses his desk, then we could put a trained monkey in his position. Does Obama understand the word "work"??????????
i think that liberals are getting concerned that obama's budget does not have enough in the way of actual jobs, with too much borrowing attached,...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
...so they are trying to turn it into bush's budget. bush is gone and obama is at the helm.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
...evidently you have no idea that a president can line item veto a budget...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
...so if he accepts the whole budget it becomes his budget. obama was part of the previous congress and it should also be noted that some of those porky part earmarks previously had obama's name on them as a senator ....
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?
There is no transparency in the Obamanation, just like all the rest. Why don't you enlighten us and show us where he has kept his promise of transparency. Just a lot of broken promises, business as usual, and smoke and mirrors.
My Democratic Senator and Congressman listen to me. They are supporting the programs I want to see. They opposed the banker's bailout but are supporting the economic recovery bill. Good enough for me.
i think that liberals are getting concerned that obama's budget does not have enough in the way of actual jobs, with too much borrowing attached, so they are trying to turn it into bush's budget. bush is gone and obama is at the helm. evidently you have no idea that a president can line item veto a budget so if he accepts the whole budget it becomes his budget. obama was part of the previous congress and it should also be noted that some of those porky part earmarks previously had obama's name on them as a senator ....
There is no presidential line item veto.
It was ruled unconstitutional.
Please google before you post, you simply rant about issues you have no knowledge of.
There is no transparency in the Obamanation, just like all the rest. Why don't you enlighten us and show us where he has kept his promise of transparency. Just a lot of broken promises, business as usual, and smoke and mirrors.
Did Bush propose to put the record of all outgoing TARP money and its uses on the internet, or was that Obama? Did Bush ask that Congress create rules to put all earmarks on the sponsoring lawmaker's website during committee markup so that people could see them all before any floor votes were taken, or was that Obama? When did the recovery.gov website go up? Did Bush do anything like that, or was that only Obama? How many Open Government Directives did Bush ever work on? How many is Obama working on?
Correction: "Obamanation" to Obama Administration
thanks for caring
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.
transparency
