O'bama promised change we could count on.
He promised to go through each spending bill that Congress passed line by line getting rid of pork and earmarks.
[Obviously he did not understand there is no line item veto but that is to be expected since he apparently understands nothing.]
Congress sends him a bill with 8000+ earmarks worth about $8 billion with a B.
Does he veto it?
No he signs it in private demonstrating, as he has on numerous occasions in the last 50 days, that his character is deeply flawed.
Aw the government would have shut down!
How scary:laugh:
Sounds like porky liberal pig is up to his revealing his real self now!!!
Not that anyone should be surprised.
He's a baby killer and any Christian who voted for him will give an account to God for that!!!:godisgood: :jesus:
LeBuick you know better than that.
Congress would have passed a continuing resolution just as they did last week.
Actually the Republicans wanted to pass a continuing resolution, which would have kept spending at last years levers, that would last until September 30.
Right, they wanted to keep the spending at last years levels. So that you don't misunderstand, I agree with the Republican's regarding keeping the spending the same and dumping the pork but that is not what the Dems wanted so that wasn't going to pass. Yes, they could have extended it another week but the Dems wasn't taking this one off the table. You could delay it but it wasn't going away.
I suspect Obama kept the blatant pork out of the stimulus bill by agreeing to let them stick all the project in this one. Kind of a last hurray so go for it guys. Now that they owe him for signing this, his budget is next up to bat. Any bets?
Now no offense, but I cant believe some of the hypocrites speaking out about the bill, had the nerve to vote no but had earmarks they put in the thing. If you're going to speak out against it, the first thing you should do is take your fat out. And there were some of these on both sides of the isle.
Correct!:thumbs:
However, I believe there has been more public noise about this one. Unfortunately I only listen to "fair and balanced" so I may be getting a biased view.:BangHead:
Just heard O'bama tell another lie.
He said that if he saw money being misspent he would call attention to it.
How much of the so-called stimulus plan is being misspent?
By the way, this thread was started calling attention to O'bama lying about the budget and ear marks.
Any lie he tells is appropriate to post so feel free.
So nobody can point out one significant item in the bill that is wasteful?
I looked at the previous post that pointed to a list of spending items in the bill.
The poster was claiming that it was ALL pork.
This is a bill that is designed to stimulate the economy.
As such it requires government spending.
It is all pork and economic stimulation does not require spending. Nor do we require economic stimulation. This was nothing more than a liberal wish list. It is all wasteful and unnecessary. You do not borrow money to get out of debt. That is poor money handling. We need to sit through the economic adjustment and decrease all spending until we get out of debt and a balanced budget. We should be paying as we go, not borrow and spend. This is utter foolishness.
In truth O'bama also lied about transparency. This bill, just like the stimulus bill is so transparent no one can see it apparently even those who voted for it.
Who posted a list of the pork you saw.
Also the bill O'bama lied about was not the so-called stimulus bill, it was the bill to fund the government until 9/30/09.
Furthermore government does not stimulate, they steal your money to distribute to those the politicians deem more worthy.
By the way when I called O'bama a "great" liar I did not mean to imply that he excelled in lying. [ Bill Clinton probably could be accused of that.]
I meant that O'bama lied copiously.
I see that you qualify your statement with the word "significant".
So wasteful spending must be "significant" to be objectionable to you?
Since it is supposed to be "stimulus" spending would you not agree that such spending that does not occur within say the first two years would not do anything to "stimulate" the economy in the first two years?
You are aware that most of the "stimulus" spending will not occur for at least two years - meaning that it is not "stimulus" spending at all.
"Stimulus" spending that does not "stimulate" is wasteful.
For that reason most of the spending is "wasteful" - and thats "significant".