Obama signs law with almost 9,000 earmarks

[doctordog]

Jesus H Christ! Obama denounces earmarks in a press conference and then signs a bill with almost 9,000 of them. Remember Carter when he let Tip O'Neil take over, well Obama is kissing Pelosi's ass and she knows it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090311/pl_mcclatchy/3186392

[Smurf-Herder]

He said he'd tell Congress to do something about that next time around. :lmao2:

It wasn't that important, because it was only around $8 Billion dollars in earmarks. Just around 1,000 times what he bothered to bitch about the banks wasting after bailouts.

Just another campaign promise down the tubes.

Why should he care? Can't you tell by those expensive dinners?

He's the most powerful man on Earth right now. He can just arbitrarily sign some executive order doing anything. And the Democrats in Congress will go along with him, in exchange for doing business as usual, with a new-found freedom (a new eloquent speaker to cover for them all).

[doctordog]

He said he'd tell Congress to do something about that next time around. :lmao2:

It wasn't that important, because it was only around $8 Billion dollars in earmarks. Just around 1,000 times what he bothered to bitch about the banks wasting after bailouts.

Just another campaign promise down the tubes.

Why should he care? Can't you tell by those expensive dinners?

He's the most powerful man on Earth right now. He can just arbitrarily sign some executive order doing anything. And the Democrats in Congress will go along with him, in exchange for doing business as usual, with a new-found freedom (a new eloquent speaker to cover for them all).

Not to mention the new Presidential limo, helicopter, and Air Force One, I want to know if Drew Rosenhouse is his agent!:lmao2:

[mwillman]

No one can please everyone.

He let them pass a bill that should have been done last October.
It has a lot of earmarks but you must realize that not all earmarks are bad.

We will see what happens next year when he has more imput into what is in the bill.

As for the rest, well, you guys just want to hate President Obama so you will find anything to bitch about.

[Smurf-Herder]

No one can please everyone.

He let them pass a bill that should have been done last October.
It has a lot of earmarks but you must realize that not all earmarks are bad.

We will see what happens next year when he has more imput into what is in the bill.

As for the rest, well, you guys just want to hate President Obama so you will find anything to bitch about.

This isn't just about bitching about Obama.

This is about the issue at hand.

A compilation of nine bills that weren't brought up, because Bush threatened to veto each one, because of all the earmarks - with an extra 8% added in.


He has input. He can send it back and tell them to cut out the pork. He's not concerned about any of it, using the excuse that it's old business - when it's his ball.

A continuing resolution has worked fine so far. This bastard needs to start keeping some promises.

[doctordog]

No one can please everyone.

He let them pass a bill that should have been done last October.
It has a lot of earmarks but you must realize that not all earmarks are bad.

We will see what happens next year when he has more imput into what is in the bill.

As for the rest, well, you guys just want to hate President Obama so you will find anything to bitch about.

It's called accountability or checks and balances, something you preached prior to the election and now ignore.:disbelief:

[Moby]

Just curious, do any of you know how many ear marks GW signed into law?

How much money was attached to the average defense spending bill to keep money going to the troops fighting the war?

I'm just curious if anyone else has bothered to research this stuff.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see an accurate comparison?

[mwillman]

I believe in checks and balances but I also think that the hypocrisy meter is running really high these days.

First off I dont think earmarks are a terrible thing. Sure some of it is waste full but not all of it is and much of what you call earmarks are really the only way congress people were able to get money for important projects because the republican leadership wanted it hidden.

If you bother to look at the history of earmarks you'll find it coincides with the supposed decreases in spending the republicans were claiming. Meaning it was just the underhanded way for republicans to pretend they weren't spending when they really were.

If you want an honest government then dont force them to lie about their spending because they are going to spend, We pay taxes and that tax money gets spent on the needs of the people.

[Hog Trash]

Just curious, do any of you know how many ear marks GW signed into law?

How much money was attached to the average defense spending bill to keep money going to the troops fighting the war?

I'm just curious if anyone else has bothered to research this stuff.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see an accurate comparison?Same old liberal arguement!...Throw up Bush when you have no excuse for your messiah. :lmao2:

You seem to have overlooked the obvious drawback in your "Bush" rebutal...Bush never promised to veto earmarks.

You're gonna be one of the 'not to bright diehard Obama supporters' SirMoby.

Don't worry, there will be plenty of other suckers to keep you company. :thumbsup:

[doctordog]

Just curious, do any of you know how many ear marks GW signed into law?

How much money was attached to the average defense spending bill to keep money going to the troops fighting the war?

I'm just curious if anyone else has bothered to research this stuff.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see an accurate comparison?

Be sure to look at the first 60 days in office for the comparison.;)