It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by Leto

Why should I reply to another "It's Bushs' fault he had to sign it" post? He is the President, if he doesn't like what it is in there he has the power of veto. If it means they don't have a budget for a few months, then here is an easy fix.

Scrap the bill as written, take one piece of paper and write down everything we must have for them to opperate. Allot enough money for them to get buy until Sept or Oct and then write your own.

That can't take more then a few days to get done. If you say "but he had to do it or there will be a freeze". He is the President, he can pass a budget plan 48 hours past the deadline. What would be the harm?

[edit on 12-3-2009 by jd140]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by jd140
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.

The article that you yourself provided ( explains perfectly that it wasn't an earmark when he put his name on it. I'll go ahead and quote the relevant sections from the article you youself provided just to ensure you're not missing it, and I'll bold the most important parts to make it easier on you:

"As you can see in this letter signed by Obama, the original request was to restore funding to a longstanding vocational education program that President Bush had targeted for elimination." "President Obama requested funding for the broader educational program. It was not an earmark."

"Throughout the appropriations process, however, as funding for other educational projects was tacked on to the original funding request, the set-aside bearing Obama's name and those of dozens of other lawmakers, did, indeed, unquestionably become an earmark. The earmark wound up including funds for specific tribal educational projects that Obama never requested." Senate Appropriations Committee has agreed to remove Obama's name from the list of cosponsors of the $7.7 million earmark before the Senate votes on the bill.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Leto]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by jd140

Ermmmm....because has only been about 50 days!!

Remember? There's no 'magic wand' ......

Repairs take time.

Ever had your kitchen remodeled????

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:53 PM
Read t his thread about earmarks.

The money will be spent regardless....earmarks only show more transparency.

If the earmarks ares stricken down...the cost of the omnibus bill is still the same...only the EXECUTIVE BRANCH will have authority on how it is spent.

It's more government spending and i'm against.

The government shouldn't be SO LARGE that we need to have earmarks anyway.

Earmarks are how they get things to their constituents that got them in office.

Bottom line....government is too big.....spending is spending.

If the federal government wasn't so freaking big the states could tax a bit more and take care of their own problems instead of pooling the entirety of taxpayer money from every state through the federal government.

This is the real problem....our federal government is TOO LARGE.

Watch this will explain earmarks to you...complements of RP.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by David9176

Yes, we all agree David.

So, your point?

IF you were the current President, would you have held your nose, and signed, in this current economic climate?

Or, would you have let the Federal Government begin to shut down?

Quick, before your hair turns more grey....decide!!!!!

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in