Obama signs 'imperfect' spending bill in private

Obama signs 'imperfect' spending bill in private

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business." The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Claiming that, "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama signed it into law anyway.

Saying further that, "several of the bill's provisions raised constitutional concerns," he further claimed that this he views this bill as a, "departure point," from the previous administration's, "questionable policies."

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's the change we need!

Way to change Washington Obama!

He's changing it alright....for the worse.

The bill was mostly done during Bush's last year as President but it got delayed. Almost half of the earmarks in the bill are from Republicans. The earmarks aren't so bad though, only a small percentage of the bill, and the earmarks themselves don't seem ridiculous to me, I don't understand why the Republicans are making so much noise about them.

Ahhh yes,

The ole I'm going to sign this bill only to signal that this is the end of that chapter.

Whatever bunch of bull hockey is what I say. I bet those earmarks that he put in that he removed his name from are still there.

If this is the "Change We Can Believe In" then I've seen enough and would rather him keep that change.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Ahhh yes,

The ole I'm going to sign this bill only to signal that this is the end of that chapter.

Whatever bunch of bull hockey is what I say. I bet those earmarks that he put in that he removed his name from are still there.

If this is the "Change We Can Believe In" then I've seen enough and would rather him keep that change.

He says he's not happy with what he's seen in the bill and promises to change that, is that not good enough for you? Would it be better for him to do nothing?

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Ahhh yes,

The ole I'm going to sign this bill only to signal that this is the end of that chapter.

Whatever bunch of bull hockey is what I say. I bet those earmarks that he put in that he removed his name from are still there.

If this is the "Change We Can Believe In" then I've seen enough and would rather him keep that change.

He says he's not happy with what he's seen in the bill and promises to change that, is that not good enough for you? Would it be better for him to do nothing?

It would be better for him to send a message to Congress that the old ways of doing business are over by VETOING that bill. Seems like a $450,000,000,000 bill should be PERFECT.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Ahhh yes,

The ole I'm going to sign this bill only to signal that this is the end of that chapter.

Whatever bunch of bull hockey is what I say. I bet those earmarks that he put in that he removed his name from are still there.

If this is the "Change We Can Believe In" then I've seen enough and would rather him keep that change.

He says he's not happy with what he's seen in the bill and promises to change that, is that not good enough for you? Would it be better for him to do nothing?

It would be better for him to send a message to Congress that the old ways of doing business are over by VETOING that bill. Seems like a $450,000,000,000 bill should be PERFECT.

He was on a deadline here, it was either pass it or stick with the old budget.

No bill will ever be perfect because compromises have to be made in order to get enough support to pass something in congress. That's bureaucracy.

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Ahhh yes,

The ole I'm going to sign this bill only to signal that this is the end of that chapter.

Whatever bunch of bull hockey is what I say. I bet those earmarks that he put in that he removed his name from are still there.

If this is the "Change We Can Believe In" then I've seen enough and would rather him keep that change.

He says he's not happy with what he's seen in the bill and promises to change that, is that not good enough for you? Would it be better for him to do nothing?

Not happy about what he's seen in th ebill and promises to change that?

He signed it! Why not change it before he signed it? He isn't going to change anything in it. I would rather him do something and veto until it is perfect. Thats alot of money to be signing away without being happy about it.

It is my understanding that the POTUS has the right to overturn such a bill. Makes no sense to sign something that he could have given executive orders to correct that with which he did not agree or items that "worried" him.

Like I have said before...BO gets not support from me. He is a tool and someone else is pulling his strings...period.

~Holly

reply to post by Leto




Really? He is going to change what he just signed into law?

How about this noble idea, how about change the bill before he even signs it? I know it might be a hard concept for an inexperienced politician that has only been successful at campaigning to understand.

Truth of the matter is, that Bush wouldn't even sign that bill. That is why the bill just got passed and signed and didn't get passed and signed last year.

I thought we were going to get "change"? I thought he was going to change the way Washington works?

I haven't seen it yet. Sure he has been more transparent, but the waste is astounding and he isn't doing anything about it. As Iamonlyhuman stated he could have changed it by vetoing the bill in the first place.

Obama is showing his incompetence and inability to control his own party. He is an ineffective leader.

He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth again. He is saying "Oh, I'm going to change what I don't like in it." Yet, he goes and signs it into law. What it shows is that he is being deceptive and manipulative and is not being honest about who he is to the American people.

And to answer your question about would it be better for him to do nothing. No, it would be better if he stood up and showed that he has a spine. He isn't showing any leadership traits.

reply to post by Leto


They were on a deadline when they delayed it the first time. To say that he was on a deadline so he had to sign it is just making up excuses. Everything he has signed in the last 50 days is urgent and must be passed right now.


He is shooting from the hip without a plan B

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Leto

 

To say that he was on a deadline so he had to sign it is just making up excuses.

More like a lesser of two evils kind of situation. It was either sign it or go with Bush's 2008 budget plan.

reply to post by Leto

It was either sign it or go with Bush's 2008 budget plan.

What he just signed was Bush's budget plan. In fact Bush didn't even agree with this budget that is why it got pushed back until this year. He could have easily issued a veto threat, but he didn't.

Originally posted by Leto
The bill was mostly done during Bush's last year as President but it got delayed. Almost half of the earmarks in the bill are from Republicans. The earmarks aren't so bad though, only a small percentage of the bill, and the earmarks themselves don't seem ridiculous to me, I don't understand why the Republicans are making so much noise about them.

Right there you said it was Bushs' budget plan!

Is this bill better then the 08 budget plan? Of course it is for the Dems because even though Obama signed it he and the rest of his followers can say "look its not my budget plan, W put it together".

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Leto

 

It was either sign it or go with Bush's 2008 budget plan.

What he just signed was Bush's budget plan.

According to the updated article this bill was supposed to be finished in fall of 2008, that'd be too late to be part of Bush's budget plan.
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
In fact Bush didn't even agree with this budget that is why it got pushed back until this year. He could have easily issued a veto threat, but he didn't.

According to the updated article the reason it didn't get completed last fall was because of the elections.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Leto

 

To say that he was on a deadline so he had to sign it is just making up excuses.

More like a lesser of two evils kind of situation. It was either sign it or go with Bush's 2008 budget plan.

Uh.. no it wasn't. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Federal Budget process understands that there is ALWAYS time. Do you really think that the government worries about deadlines? Oh, and who makes the "deadlines" anyway?

Obama's a dud. Face it. There's no lie he won't say.

"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."--Barack Obama, Jan. 6, 2009

www.rutherford.org...

It seems to me that they are passing through bills from the Bush admin.,because THEY ARE TO incompetent, to figure out how to solve the problem, I read Obama is still asking Bush for advise on Iraq.