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.

 

Obama signs 'imperfect' spending bill in private

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I would have a teleprompter too. Either that or I would be looking down at note cards. Just because he uses some method for giving a good speech doesn't mean he wasn't involved in writing it.

I can understand why Obama would sign this bill even being imperfect. This is the plan people. This is what we have to save the economy, weather you like it or not this is it. I don't know if you guys have been reading the news but things are not getting better (besides the slight rise in stocks today). If Obama was to veto this bill it would have to start over fresh. We would have to wait for this bill to get through congress again. This is the plan, anything done besides signing this bill would be delaying not only the bill but our only plan. Again I say I understand why he would sign this bill.




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Hastobe.....you don't seem to understand how American government works, under the Constitution...the REAL Constitution.

Dontcha think if the President....ANY President, could simply, as you said, 'strip out the earmarks' before signing a Bill....dontcha think that would no longer be a Representational Democracy, but instead a 'dictatorship'???

Perhaps some learning, and study, would help....an education into how Government really works.

EDIT....OT, but after re-reading your post, Hastobe....seems someone has been listen to a certain Ann Coulter. Since you mentioned Mr. Olbermann's Diploma from Cornell....well, you didn't actually mention Cornell, but Mr. Olbermann has a Diploma from Cornell. He's not mis-representing anything....

here's an example....the University of California has various campuses....would you belive it fair to impugn ONE Diploma from UC Irvine, as opposed to one from, say, UC Berkely???

Same over-all academic standards, different disciplines of studies.

Ann Coulter is a ..... well....I cannot say it. It would be too rude.

Ask Meghan McCain....Sen. John McCain's own daughter what she has said, on her own blog, about Mister Coulter...oops, I mean, 'Ms' Coulter....

[edit on 3/12/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I really won't pen this on Obama over earmarks. The last thing the government needs now is some kind of shutdown. He did what any other President would have done under the current economic situation IMO.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Oh I understand the Constitution. I read it almost everyday.

And no Obama telling them to strip out all the earmarks is not anything close to a Dictatorship. It is showing that you have an ability to lead and come through on your campaign pledges. Because if they were that confident in the bill after Obama Vetoed it they could vote on it again and get passed with 2/3 majority vote.

Instead once again he blames it on the last guy. Another excuse as to why he can't get anything done. In fact he said something akin to I'm going to sign this as an example that this is the last time this will happen. Mean while they are writing up a second "stimulus" bill.

Yea, I would love to see you go to an alternate campus and get a degree from there then put you got your degree from the "main" campus on a resume and have your potential employer try to pull your transcripts. That ain't going to fly.

Point is Obama is incompetent and has no leadership abilities.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Oh I understand the Constitution. I read it almost everyday.

And no Obama telling them to strip out all the earmarks is not anything close to a Dictatorship. It is showing that you have an ability to lead and come through on your campaign pledges. Because if they were that confident in the bill after Obama Vetoed it they could vote on it again and get passed with 2/3 majority vote.

Instead once again he blames it on the last guy. Another excuse as to why he can't get anything done. In fact he said something akin to I'm going to sign this as an example that this is the last time this will happen. Mean while they are writing up a second "stimulus" bill.

Yea, I would love to see you go to an alternate campus and get a degree from there then put you got your degree from the "main" campus on a resume and have your potential employer try to pull your transcripts. That ain't going to fly.

Point is Obama is incompetent and has no leadership abilities.


Let's get real here, the earmarks in this bill amounts to only 1% of the bill, and almost half of them come from Republicans. Should we freeze the government because a portion of that 1% is not satisfactory? Do you know the harm that freezing the government does?

What do you think would happen if he had frozen the government by not signing the bill? You'd probably be here telling us that he's incompetent and has no leadership skills.

Also Obama is not against all earmarks, he acknowledges that some earmarks are actually beneficial, he's just against those which aren't beneficial.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Hastobe....again....Cornell University has many campuses. They are NOT 'alternative.

Please do the 'google' or the YTube and look for Mr. Keith Olbermann owning Ms. Ann Coulter on this very allegation!!!

Hint: Mr. Olbermann holds up his actual, framed Diploma.

NOW, back to the nonsense about 'imperfect' Bills being signed, and the sly innuendo that it somehow, because, by innuendo again, implies some sort of 'underhand' because it was signed in 'private'......

I find the Title of this thread to be full of said innuendo....hence the responses it has received.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


Okay, lets get real.

No, if he would have vetoed the bill and froze the government I would actually think a little better of him than I do now. Not much better but a little better by him actually fulfilling his campaign promise.

The earmark split is 60% Democrats and 40% Republicans. I'm sick of both parties. Neither of them do what they say they stand for.

They have had a month and half or so to reform this appropriations bill. They could have done one of two things in the situation. They could have voted for another stop-gap that would have extended the current budget from last year for the remainder of this year while the worked out something better.

And about the earmarks. Another flip-flop on his part. He is in way over his . and it shows. First it was earmark reform. Well this was the perfect bill in order for him to start, but he lacks the leadership traits in order to reign in his own party. If he could have at least cut half the earmarks out of this one that would have shown something.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Leto
 


They have had a month and half or so to reform this appropriations bill. They could have done one of two things in the situation.


Did they have that much time? Seems to me that it was quite recent that they had just finished passing the Stimulus Bill into law.


Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
And about the earmarks. Another flip-flop on his part. He is in way over his . and it shows. First it was earmark reform. Well this was the perfect bill in order for him to start, but he lacks the leadership traits in order to reign in his own party. If he could have at least cut half the earmarks out of this one that would have shown something.


I think he's shown great leadership, I love how he allows the press and congress to ask him questions on live tv. I like how he seems to take things seriously which is in stark contrast to the jovial Bush. I like how even though Obama takes things seriously he can throw in a good joke or two in there to lighten things up. I like how he's willing to try to open talks with Iran and other leaders of the world, Bush has hurt our reputation worldwide and I hope Obama can repair it.

As for your claim that he's not able to reign in his own party that claim doesn't seem to relate to the fact that so far he's been able to pass every bill despite Republicans saying no to everything.

He says he'll be working on reforming earmarks, give him time, he hasn't even been in office for two months. Give the guy a chance.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Hastobe....I know, you directed this at Leto....

Regardless of the 60%/40% attributable to the Dems/Reps....perhaps some clever examination of those particular 'earmarks' is worthy of understanding, as to whether they are 'pets', or actually may HELP a stimulus....

IS the 60%/40% a count of the NUMBER of earmarks??? How does it compare to the US$ amount, between parties???? By comparison???

BTW, too many on this thread have accused Pres.Obama of having inserted these earmarks, all by himself. Well....he WAS a Senator, from Illinois. So, let's see what he did, what HE inserted, in that capacity. AS a Senator....I ask for proof!



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 



Its late and I'm not at top game here so I might be wrong, but he passes all these bills because he doesn't need an unanamous vote on them. The Dems have the majority so the Republicans can't really hinder him.

Like I said at this hour I'm not 100% sure on this.

I happened to have liked W's jovial attitude. He got serious when he had to also. There is something about Obama though that makes me think he is talking down to people when he answers peoples questions. Just a vibe I get from him.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Here you go, interesting enough they decided to delete his name from the earmark after the press caught wind of it.


voices.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Ermmm.....jd....did you not notice how many people signed that bill?

AND....it's not llike it was some sort of 'pet' project!!!!

Not a 'bridge to nowhere', as Sen.Stevens, for example, once attempted.

In all fairness...the so-called 'bridge to nowhere' actually was intended to go somewhere....to a small island in the State of Alaska, to connect the few inhabitants via a bridge....but the extent of the proposed 'project' far exceeded its need.

Earmarks.....such a 'nasty' term....yet, sometimes good ones slip through, 'piggy-backed' on other spending bills.

How to judge? WHO will judge? Where are the oversight, the 'gatekeepers'???

535 different voices in Congress...mostly all trying to satisfy their constiuents at home....it is NOT a perfect system.

Compare to the British House of Commons....our friends across the Pond....they regularly yell at one another, a form of decorum not allowed in OUR House....just another way to conduct Government....different, of course.

AND to think, Americans consider the British to be 'stodgy'!!!!



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Ron Paul makes the case that we need more earmarks. He doesn't want this spending bill, and he says that congress was wasting time by arguing about this. He says it's Congress' responsibility to say WHERE this money goes, making the process more transparent. He says the main problem, is the spending.

I'm just tired of Obama. I bet Geryon from Dante's Inferno had his face.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Viral
 


Wait a minute.....Dr. Ron Paul wants MORE earmarks, but is against this current omnibus spending bill....the one, as stinky as it is, was needed as a band-aid in order to prevent a Gov't shut-down?? Because it has 'earmarks'????

So, rep. Paul, a Republican....but more of a 'Libertarian'....and an advocate of LESS government....wants MORE earmarks?

I am very confused.....



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jd140
 


Ermmm.....jd....did you not notice how many people signed that bill?

AND....it's not llike it was some sort of 'pet' project!!!!

Not a 'bridge to nowhere', as Sen.Stevens, for example, once attempted.

In all fairness...the so-called 'bridge to nowhere' actually was intended to go somewhere....to a small island in the State of Alaska, to connect the few inhabitants via a bridge....but the extent of the proposed 'project' far exceeded its need.

Earmarks.....such a 'nasty' term....yet, sometimes good ones slip through, 'piggy-backed' on other spending bills.

How to judge? WHO will judge? Where are the oversight, the 'gatekeepers'???

535 different voices in Congress...mostly all trying to satisfy their constiuents at home....it is NOT a perfect system.

Compare to the British House of Commons....our friends across the Pond....they regularly yell at one another, a form of decorum not allowed in OUR House....just another way to conduct Government....different, of course.

AND to think, Americans consider the British to be 'stodgy'!!!!


Who gives a crap how many names are on it. The one that matters and the one you requested is on there. President Obama's signature is on an earmark, after all that crap he said during the election concerning earmarks, the man signed it. That is what you wanted proof of and that is what I provided.

Now that you got the proof, you don't like it. Now you are saying that it doesn't count because other people signed it and that it wasn't a pet project.

I expect people to be held accountable for what they say that includes the President. He lied to you and me, the proof is right there. I am going to hold him accountable for it and you keep making excuses for him.

Pathetic.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


jd....there WAS a candidate in 2008 who said HE would stop all earmarks....

That candidate was John McCain.

Barack Obama vowed that he would look at earmarks 'line-by-line'.

Remember, please, that the current 'omnibus' bill, just signed, was crafted LAST YEAR!!! During the Bush Administration. It was left, it seems, as a "Bush Bomb"....to explode in the next President's lap!

Do you really think that every new president can wave a magic wand?

Bush, in his illegitimate ascendance to the Presidency in 2000 inherited a robust economy....and blew it!!!

Now, after about 50 days, the jackals are circling??? Get rational!

EDIT...for the Obama bashers....maybe not on THIS thread....but for those that claim he needs a TelePrompTr (I think that is the correct description) there is a live news conference, right now....LIVE, 1644 EDT.

He answers questions coherently....he thinks as he speaks....and, big difference from the last eight years, he isn't 'fishing' in his memory for the 'talking points' he had been "briefed" beforehand.

(Of course, I am referring to GWB. If that boob had an original thought, in eight years in office, it certainly didn't show on the TV machine)



[edit on 3/12/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Okay, I will compromise. He said he will go through line by line. He lied about that twice. The stimulous bill he signed and now this one. He also had almost a billion dollars and earmarks himself his first three years as Senator and during the campaign said he will not ask for anymore. He lied about that too.

Here is his campaign promise. It shows he has not come close to being true to his word on this.

www.politifact.com...

www.politifact.com...


[edit on 12-3-2009 by jd140]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Who gives a crap how many names are on it. The one that matters and the one you requested is on there. President Obama's signature is on an earmark, after all that crap he said during the election concerning earmarks, the man signed it. That is what you wanted proof of and that is what I provided.


Actually you're incorrect, his name isn't there, you must have misread the article. According to the article you provided his name was on it when it wasn't an earmark, but then other things were added and he requested his name be taken off the support list and they took it off.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Okay, I will compromise. He said he will go through line by line. He lied about that twice. The stimulous bill he signed and now this one. He also had almost a billion dollars and earmarks himself his first three years as Senator and during the campaign said he will not ask for anymore. He lied about that too.

Here is his campaign promise. It shows he has not come close to being true to his word on this.

www.politifact.com...

www.politifact.com...


[edit on 12-3-2009 by jd140]


You're replying to his post in which he explains to you why Obama had to sign these two bills and yet you continue as if he didn't explain it or you didn't understand him.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


He requested his name to be taken off when it was reported by CNN of Foxnews. I'm not backing down from this posistion. I heard the report and if need be I will post the article.

No, I'm done posting these things, you can do your own research for once.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join