It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge



WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge against congressional earmarks and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.



Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it.


A quote by Emanuel....

Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."


You have got to be kidding.........
www.foxnews.com...


Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.



Who is running the country? There is a dark shadow lurking in our government........If the last 60 days does not wake up America then I am not sure what will......... and there is more to come!! It just maybe too late at this point to change the course we are headed down.

Anyone have a red star they would like to sell?



[edit on 11-3-2009 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Cloudsinthesky]




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Wow and people were screaming bloody murder at President Bush's spending, yet the golden boy obama blows billions in his first couple months an not so much as a whisper from the press.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
He would hold his nose and sign it, how admirable. Are people really suprised, he is a politician, no different then any other politician. He lies, that is what they do, they slit your throat while smiling and telling you it is ok.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I knew he was going to find excuses to break his promises.
I wonder which promise is next??



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
All an earmark does is allocate part of the appropriation for a particular purpose. If we get rid of the Earmarks in this budget, then it would still be a whopper of a budget, but the allocation would be left to a federal department rather than to Congress.

In some cases (including many cases of late), I think that most people would prefer that their congressmen allocate the money as opposed to bureaucrats. You can at least vote your Rep out of office if you don't like what he spends money on.

Of course, I think that most (if not all) congressmen are grossly incompetent and I therefore dislike earmarks on that ground.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


Earmarks are nothing more than a bribe for a vote...........



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
All I can find is that he vowed earmark reform to "make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." I don't think he promised to never have any. Can someone correct me with a source to his actual promise? Thanks.

Earmarks doesn't equal "pork".

Obama's Promise to go after Earmarks

PoliFact lists it as a Compromise, not a Broken Promise.

I believe the Omnibus is loaded with earmarks, and probably pork, but 40% of them are from Republicans. Source



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky
reply to post by theWCH
 


Earmarks are nothing more than a bribe for a vote...........


That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that they're largely irrelevant to the .gov spending debate (at least, in the context that people talk about them).

I'm all for letting bureaucrats decide what to do with the money, because I think letting congress allocate the money risks having to cut out more useful projects. I also think that our congressmen are idiots.

If you really want to cut spending, then the thing to do is shut down actual bureaucracies (such as the Department of Energy, or Homeland Security, or some other department). That's not politically possible, because most people think that most of these departments are useful. Earmarks, by the way, can complicate this process because they can act as political currency ("I'll help to keep your favorite department open, if you help keep mine open").


[edit on 11-3-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
He won't be the first politician to break a promise.

He won't be the last either.

It's time for the Democrats to either put up or shut up. They need to strip out all their earmarks from the budget or admit that they will say anything to get elected.

I'd love to see real change in Washington but I'm not holding my breath.

Money and power go hand in hand and often at the expense of the common person.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This is not a Republican or Democratic issue............Its a Federal Government issue and the one's who are in the shadow of our government.

Just look around............We are the Sheeple!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue...


Oh, I know. I'm looking at the people who are complaining the loudest about the earmarks and broken promises.



We are the Sheeple!!


Speak for yourself.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



All I can find is that he vowed earmark reform to "make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." I don't think he promised to never have any. Can someone correct me with a source to his actual promise? Thanks.



Oh, I know. I'm looking at the people who are complaining the loudest about the earmarks and broken promises.


My comment does not have anything to do with "the people who are complaining the loudest about the earmarks and broken promises".

Its not about did he or did he not make promises. Its about "actions" that are being pushed through by the shadow government...............



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The first step in eliminating unnecessary pork products from Capital Hill is to enact strict term limits on these elected officials. Two terms and you are done should be the norm.

The "Lifers" on the Hill have way to much to lose if earmarks are all but eliminated. These guys can't live without kickbacks and they sit on the Hill for so long that they truly believe that they are above the law and above the people who foolishly elect them. Barney Frank, Rangel, Pelosi, Daischle, Biden just to name a few. Republicans too. They are all part of the problem.

Some of the best solutions and ideas I have heard in ages have come from the mouths of Freshmen on the Hill. Yet, the fat cats always seem to crush them.

Eliminate the "lifers" and introduce a constant stream of fresh blood into the system. Our legislative branch is in dire need of a major transfusion.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Guys, this whole "earmark" thing is a diversion. Note my prior posts in this thread: it doesn't increase spending, per se; it simply allocates portions of the budget to specific projects within certain districts. We're talking about a very minute portion of the budget. Is it used as political currency? Hell yes, it is. Should this be the one of the biggest stories in American politics? No, it obviously shouldn't be.

Earmarks are only a problem when we're talking about "wasteful spending" (look up the legendary earmarks for mohair farmers as a prime example of wasteful spending). Funding for basic scientific research is not wasteful spending because it increases human capital. Come on, my fellow libertarians should know this, even if our GOP "friends" are oblivious!

To listen to the news, you'd think that earmarks were one of the top problems facing America. Guess what ... they aren't!

This is a diversion. Theatre. Hand-waving. They're gaming us by even making this an issue!



[edit on 11-3-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I am so glad I can get my tattoo removed now by the government.......Thank you big O.....



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Obama is nothing but a puppet for TPTB. He MUST have a teleprompter in front of him costantly because he is a mindless, inept, socialist puppet. Check the link below for undeniable proof. 2 clips.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 11-3-2009 by Elostone]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


Very well explain, even when some of them or most of them are pork they are what the people in the individual state wants, some times nothing more than favors for the ones that pay the most on the campaigns.

Still Obama very clearly said this morning in his second speech that all the Earmark will be analyzed and before money goes to them he will make sure that they deserve tax payer money.

So if anybody listened to Obama this morning he was very clear about how to handle waste of money.

Now for those that wants to keep bashing him go ahead and have a good happy time.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This is why the whole system needs to crash or this BS will go on and on into our childrens childrens lives,democrats and republicans same thing!,these vampires are addicted to our blood/money




[edit on 12-3-2009 by all2human]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
all2human, I think that the one sucking the most tax payer blood right now is Bernanke kissing and propping the financial elite banks and the federal reserve so we stay indebted for life.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Even if the earmarks were taken out, that money would still by spent by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. It's screwed up...but that's how it works.

At least that is how Ron Paul explains it. Opened my eyes a bit to earmarks. I don't agree with the spending at all...but at least we know where the money is going...even if some of it is PIG FARMS.


www.abovetopsecret.com...'



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join