Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Will Obama live up to campaign promise?

23 posts in this topic

Posted

"We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely"

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/555467.html

My guess is he will not live up to his earmark reform statement by going line-by-line through the 9,000 earmarks in this bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like today how he hinted that the Republicans weren't working with him because "90 percent of the bill" was stuff that was obviously needed and even the Republicans couldn't argue that, and that they were quibbling over small stuff to keep an obviously needed bill from passing.

1. What is 10 percent of 800 billion?

2. If you wanted Republican support so badly, why didn't you just remover the 10 percent (his estimate) of pork to get it done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's not that the other 10 percent was "pork", it was just a number thrown out as arguable. Republicans had already decided to boycott the plan, and all this would have done was drag it out and when that happens, the chances of it passing go down.

Obama cannot "make" the Republicans do anything if they are only set on the course of resistance. When something like this passes only on party lines, it's clear that the oppositions idea of "compromise" is unacceptable - the stimulus already has done more tax cuts than originally intended, and the cost is nowhere near as high as it was reported to be at times.

Aside from that, a cursory knowledge of politics will show you that a 90% acceptable bill is a rare thing for any legislator. When the soon to be Commerce Secretary withdraws his nomination over something he knew was going to happen last November, you should have a clue as to which party is not interested in working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's not that the other 10 percent was "pork", it was just a number thrown out as arguable. Republicans had already decided to boycott the plan, and all this would have done was drag it out and when that happens, the chances of it passing go down.

Obama cannot "make" the Republicans do anything if they are only set on the course of resistance. When something like this passes only on party lines, it's clear that the oppositions idea of "compromise" is unacceptable - the stimulus already has done more tax cuts than originally intended, and the cost is nowhere near as high as it was reported to be at times.

Aside from that, a cursory knowledge of politics will show you that a 90% acceptable bill is a rare thing for any legislator. When the soon to be Commerce Secretary withdraws his nomination over something he knew was going to happen last November, you should have a clue as to which party is not interested in working together.

Or which party is not interested in having any ownership of something that is obviously full of crap and being sold as something that must be passed to save this economy from going under.

Wall Street knows what's going on. How has it been doing since Obama took over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see, so when Bush presented the bank bailouts and said rapid passage was needed (along with the Dems in Congress), that was peachy, but with a Dem prez and Congress, this one is beyond the pale.

This should tell you all you need to know about partisanship and who is the worst at it - at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see, so when Bush presented the bank bailouts and said rapid passage was needed (along with the Dems in Congress), that was peachy, but with a Dem prez and Congress, this one is beyond the pale.

This should tell you all you need to know about partisanship and who is the worst at it - at the moment.

George Bush phoned it in his last year and a half. Bill Clinton said most of this could have been prevented if Bush had taken measures to fix it. You won't hear me defend the most "in over his head" president we've ever had. But still, we had a choice of two men to fix this mess. And we chose the one with precious little experience and we didn't choose the guy who had years of experience dealing with Democrats. Why? Cause one made a prettier speech. Not too bright if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Choosing the guy who voted with the in over his head guy over 90% of the time would not have been too bright either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why? Cause one made a prettier speech. Not too bright if you ask me.

Ahh, that's right. If only Obama said "my friends" at the end of each sentence, it would be a marked improvement. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Or "my fellow prisoners" if appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ahh, that's right. If only Obama said "my friends" at the end of each sentence, it would be a marked improvement. :rolleyes:

No, he should have said: "Everything I am telling you know, means nothing when I am in office."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, he should have said: "Everything I am telling you know, means nothing when I am in office."

Isn't that assumed? Or do you hold dems to a higher standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Isn't that assumed? Or do you hold dems to a higher standard?

:D Uh, no. I certainly do not hold Dems to a higher standard. I assumed everything Obama said, and says, is 99% B.S.

Just like a few weeks ago when I heard Obama say his stimulus plan would get the workers at Caterpillar their jobs back. I immediately thought, bullshit Barry, how can you say that? Here is the transcript:

Obama said: "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off. And that's a story I'm confident will be repeated at companies across the country," Obama said.

:D Not so fast Mr. Obama.

After Obama's speech, Owens (CEO of Cat) said, "That's one of the things I wanted to clarify because I don't want false expectations: If we sign this stimulus bill, that doesn't mean we can start hiring right away." The 22,000 layoffs would still happen -- and probably more.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1428346,obama-speaks-caterpillar-east-peoria-021209.article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites