Senate Immigration Bill full of Earmarks -- Obama Promised to Reduce Earmarks (wages, Reid)
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.
Obama has kept promises, compromised on promises, ignored promises, and broken promises. I have no vested interest or care in all things Obama. I agree with him on some issues and disagree with him on others.
Why do you attack when someone asks him to keep a promise? Seems like a vested interest in Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yea......ummmm......actually Obama does't work in the Senate anymore........
When you get to high school you will take a government class. In that class you will learn that Obama could fulfill his promise as made. He could tell the senate that he will not sign the current bill as written as it violates responsible government per his own words. The senate could then pass a new bill or have their bill get vetoed if it passed the House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv
It was a foolish promise. Nobody is going to give up earmarks.
Obama didn't foolishly ask people to "give up" earmarks. As I pointed out, Obama said that he would reduce earmarks to 1994 levels, by veto if necessary. He said Bush was irresponsible for letting earmarks grow, now they have grown under him....you probably chanted yes we can over and over again when he made this promise.
Yea......ummmm......actually Obama does't work in the Senate anymore........
You should have stated that Obama isnot in the Senate anymore. He never worked when he was there; just mostly voted 'present' and did nothing meaningful.
Those relate to the purpose of the bill. Obama specifically promised to reduce earmarks that have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill.
You know this. You must be obfuscating to cover for Obama's broken promises.
Stop making excuses for and hold him accountable.
Obama said that he would reduce earmarks.
This bill is full of earmarks.
Obama, as he said, can tell the Senate to take out the earmarks or veto if necessary to get them out.
You seem to be confused in believing a President has the ability to ask the Senate to re-write their proposed legislation...to remove era-marks.
The porvision has to go thru the "legislative" process and go next to the House of Representitives for their version...then then provisions go into committee for final re-write version.
The President is part of the Executie branch...They are not involved at this stage. The President has no way to remove "ear-marks" at this stage.
Money is earmarked to build the border fence, increase border patrol agents, and increase surveillance technology at the border. Should those earmarks be taken out of the bill?
Maybe the $100 million a year for life that Harry Reid put in for tourism for Nevada could be removed.
You seem to be confused in believing a President has the ability to ask the Senate to re-write their proposed legislation...to remove era-marks.
The porvision has to go thru the "legislative" process and go next to the House of Representitives for their version...then then provisions go into committee for final re-write version.
The President is part of the Executie branch...They are not involved at this stage. The President has no way to remove "ear-marks" at this stage.
Sure he can. Since he doesn't have line item veto power he can just veto the whole bill and say "Take out the pork and send it back."
You seem to be confused in believing a President has the ability to ask the Senate to re-write their proposed legislation...to remove era-marks.
The porvision has to go thru the "legislative" process and go next to the House of Representitives for their version...then then provisions go into committee for final re-write version.
The President is part of the Executie branch...They are not involved at this stage. The President has no way to remove "ear-marks" at this stage.
All presidents in my lifetime, including Obama, have voiced opinions about bills as they go through the process. You probably already know this, but you would rather make excuses than live in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Sure he can. Since he doesn't have line item veto power he can just veto the whole bill and say "Take out the pork and send it back."
Exactly.
Obama could fight for his promise.
He could say today right now that he disapproves of the pork and he promised to reduce pork and then threaten veto and follow through if the pork is not taken out of the bill that comes to his desk.
Maybe the $100 million a year for life that Harry Reid put in for tourism for Nevada could be removed.
That would be a true "Hope and Change" move. However, Obama is not about change or promises, he is about political games.
Obama promised to post all non-emergency bills online for five days before he signed them into law. He broke this on his first bill indicating that he never intended to keep the promise as he continually breaks it.
Obama promised no lobbysists in the WH, then he filled it with Bush level lobbyists simply by giving lobbyists waivers.
The guy is a run of the mill politician without much integrity, because his fawning followers refuse to hold him accountable for anything.
Money is earmarked to build the border fence, increase border patrol agents, and increase surveillance technology at the border. Should those earmarks be taken out of the bill?
It does sound like practically all of the "pork" is designated for border fence and border security. That being the case the OP seems fairly pointless.
Obama didn't foolishly ask people to "give up" earmarks. As I pointed out, Obama said that he would reduce earmarks to 1994 levels, by veto if necessary. He said Bush was irresponsible for letting earmarks grow, now they have grown under him....you probably chanted yes we can over and over again when he made this promise.
Of course trying to reduce but not eliminate earmarks is difficult. Basically, he's saying he wants less de-facto bribery in the legislative system but still wants it available to himself when he really wants to use it. The problem with that is that the legislature has becoming used to / numbed to them. Takes more and more to swing a vote. So if a president wants to buy votes through earmarks, he has to keep them going at current or escalating levels. Wanting to keep that leverage but not pay out as much is wishful thinking. Kind of like a drug user who wants to go back to the high they used to get from light and occasional use like when they just started, after becoming habitual and heavy users.
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.
