green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="trrenter" date=1237018858][quote author="green_cactus" date=1237011973][quote author="trrenter" date=1236997113][quote author="green_cactus" date=1236991788][quote author="trrenter" date=1236983533]
Sorry I must have misunderstood what Obama said when he ran for POTUS. I thought he said NO EARMARKS. If Jackass Republicans and Democrats wanted to add earmarks to a bill to test Obamas resolve Obama just failed.
I don't care about the percentage NO Earmarks would be 0%. This is not 0%.</blockquote>
You certainly did misunderstand him. At no point did he say anything about no more earmarks. He was advocating for earmark reform and ending the secrecy of slipping in earmarks at the very last moment. The closest he has come in stating that he wants to eliminate earmarks is to claim that he wants to cut the "screwy" ones. Most other times he is referring to earmark reform - not their abolition.
"There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated." [Obama, 3rd Presidential Debate]
The problem is arguing what is and isn't a "screwy thing" to spend money on.</blockquote>
You are right he didn't promise no earmarks. My mistake.
He promised to go through each bill and not sing off on it if it was earmarked laden.
The press has announced he broke his campaign promise and to that it may have effected the market on the downside.
His rhetoric on the campaign trail regarding earmarks did not match what just happened.</blockquote>
During the 2nd presidential debate Obama said:
"Sen. McCain likes to talk about earmarks a lot. And that's important. I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper."
Again, not quite the same thing that the media is touting as "Obama has lied to us" ...</blockquote>
So we get caught up in the semantics. Obama talked a tough game on Earmarks and signed a bill laden with them.
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090311/pl_mcclatchy/3186392">Another article</a>
Notable among them are $155.9 million worth of projects that six members of the Obama administration who were members of Congress last year, when the bill was originally written, inserted into the bill.
Top among them was Vice President Joe Biden . As a senator from Delaware , Biden added 56 earmarks that cost a total of $52.1 million , including $13.7 million for the Intracoastal Waterway from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay and $190,000 to help build a children's museum in Wilmington .
So instead of arguing Obama's exact verbiage can we say that if the American People that voted for him believed things would be different and then they saw this they may be thinking "same old same old"
Which could have some downward effect on the market. No confidence there will be the Change he ran on.
In other words this could have had some effect.</blockquote>
From your article:
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
""I am signing an imperfect . . . bill," Obama said, "because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery."
Your argument may be valid next time a spending comes his way and if things don't change much. But for now, it's a bit too early to hop on Hannity's bus blaming Obama of being a liar.
Sorry I must have misunderstood what Obama said when he ran for POTUS. I thought he said NO EARMARKS. If Jackass Republicans and Democrats wanted to add earmarks to a bill to test Obamas resolve Obama just failed.
I don't care about the percentage NO Earmarks would be 0%. This is not 0%.</blockquote>
You certainly did misunderstand him. At no point did he say anything about no more earmarks. He was advocating for earmark reform and ending the secrecy of slipping in earmarks at the very last moment. The closest he has come in stating that he wants to eliminate earmarks is to claim that he wants to cut the "screwy" ones. Most other times he is referring to earmark reform - not their abolition.
"There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated." [Obama, 3rd Presidential Debate]
The problem is arguing what is and isn't a "screwy thing" to spend money on.</blockquote>
You are right he didn't promise no earmarks. My mistake.
He promised to go through each bill and not sing off on it if it was earmarked laden.
The press has announced he broke his campaign promise and to that it may have effected the market on the downside.
His rhetoric on the campaign trail regarding earmarks did not match what just happened.</blockquote>
During the 2nd presidential debate Obama said:
"Sen. McCain likes to talk about earmarks a lot. And that's important. I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper."
Again, not quite the same thing that the media is touting as "Obama has lied to us" ...</blockquote>
So we get caught up in the semantics. Obama talked a tough game on Earmarks and signed a bill laden with them.
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090311/pl_mcclatchy/3186392">Another article</a>
Notable among them are $155.9 million worth of projects that six members of the Obama administration who were members of Congress last year, when the bill was originally written, inserted into the bill.
Top among them was Vice President Joe Biden . As a senator from Delaware , Biden added 56 earmarks that cost a total of $52.1 million , including $13.7 million for the Intracoastal Waterway from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay and $190,000 to help build a children's museum in Wilmington .
So instead of arguing Obama's exact verbiage can we say that if the American People that voted for him believed things would be different and then they saw this they may be thinking "same old same old"
Which could have some downward effect on the market. No confidence there will be the Change he ran on.
In other words this could have had some effect.</blockquote>
From your article:
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
""I am signing an imperfect . . . bill," Obama said, "because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery."
Your argument may be valid next time a spending comes his way and if things don't change much. But for now, it's a bit too early to hop on Hannity's bus blaming Obama of being a liar.
