And our money flies away - Obama signed the $410 Billion $ Bill

redchief wrote: So much for Washington reform. I'd actually hoped Obama would have some success at curbing pork barrel spending (affectionately known as "earmarks" to the Congressional scum) as he promised. Higher taxes to pay for the socialism he wants in place is going to be bad enough on the backs of the working folk. Unfortunately he may be president, but there's no stopping the Congressional steam-roller.

Want to read about it?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/03/ob...t_bill_wit.html

He stomped his feet and cried foul... now there's reform! Then he signed the piece of garbage.

luvmykids replied: Yah....I had hoped the same

MommyToAshley replied: I'm disappointed by it as well. I also don't buy that it is left over business. He could have just as easily not signed it and worked with congress on a bill that didn't contain all the earmarks.

boyohboyohboy replied: I agree, he is president, I mean if anyone had the "power" to stop this thing and really make a difference he did..and he blew it.

my2monkeyboys replied: I agree with you all. I will admit though that I didn't think for a second that he'd stand against it... folks in Washington tend to love taking our money and spending it on what ever they want.

lisar replied: I agree with everyone. I gave him the one chance and he blew it. Oh well theres nothing I can do about it.

TheOaf66 replied: hate to be a person that says "I told you so" but

msoulz replied: Well I am sure to get congress to pass anything they had to include their pet projects. That is politics in the US. That is how it works. At this point we needed something passed to get a recovery started so I am cutting him slack - for now. His ideals are very good but changing an old system takes time that currently we just don't have, at least not here in Michigan where unemployment is in double digits and climbing.

At least he is doing something and not ignoring or trying to cover the issues. Are they the right things? Time will tell.

coasterqueen replied:
I completely agree.

coasterqueen replied:
I disagree to keep the philosophy "it's politics as usual", especially if you voted for Obama. Wasn't he the one that said he was going to CHANGE politics as usual? Then he goes and signs the bill. It doesn't take time, all it takes is for him to say "Nope, I promised the people no pork and that's what I'm giving them and if you continue giving me bills with pork in them then this is ALL on YOU (congress) - you will be to blame for why we can't help America." That's what the man should have done. He campaigned on standing up to pushy politics and then he let them push him right over, which is what I expected, especially from a freshman Senator.

lisar replied:
I agree. He should have just said no. He promised "Change" we got change alright it just wasnt the kind he promised.

And the whole freshman senator well thats just funny I never heard someone put it that way

DVFlyer replied: I've said for a long time that the President is just a figurehead for the country. For the most part, I do not see how that position holds any real power.

BAC'sMom replied:

lisar replied:
I love the smiley!!!!!!!

luvmykids replied:
ITA, I understand the sense of urgency to get things moving but he didn't even put up a fight, and like you said, he should have put it right back on Congress to knock it off and not hold up the beneficial changes.

coasterqueen replied:
You know I also think if he would have done that, the American people would understand the whole picture a bit better and I just think they may be more understanding in general. He could show them he's trying, he did what he said he would do and "look America, it's not me - it's them". Maybe Americans would then understand that everything that is done is not solely due to the president, that congress plays a big part.

DVFlyer replied: If he doesn't do something people will blame him for not getting things done. If he says he can't get things done because congress won't pass items unless there is something in it for them, people will say that "he's the president and should be able to find a way".

coasterqueen replied:
No, we say live up to your promises, like he said he would do.

luvbug00 replied: Grrrrr says the McCain supporter.....

jcc64 replied: And I'm sure none of those earmarks came from Republicans. Not a one.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I do note the sarcasism..but why does it have to be a republican/democrate thing?
I think its about the promises that were made and the hope of change that we all have...
its pointing out just that we wanted him to stand up like he said he was going to.
I think even the people who didnt vote for him, the critics of him, would have had more respect for him if he had at least attempted to stand up for what he said he believed in..

he really lost more of his credibility.

I agree with mary that waiting it out while congress went back over and over the bill to get the ear marks out which would have taken a long time since that isnt how politics work and hasnt for a long time..it would have causes a down ward spiral to speed up..but maybe thats what was needed..

Danalana replied: I agree, Stacy. It's not even about Democrat and Republican for me anymore. He made all these promises of being so much better than Bush, and he was going to point us in the direction we needed to go....and already MANY people have lost confidence in him--even many who supported him. Nobody is seeing anything that points toward change and that's the bottom line. He's going against what he said he would do. I hope and pray, for the sake of this country, that he starts living up to the big promises he made.

coasterqueen replied:
Jeanne - Did anyone say that? Why would you even post that? I just don't get it. I've said numerous times in other posts that there were just as many earmarks by Repubs as Dems. I think in this post I said Obama should stand up to CONGRESS. I did not say a Democratic congress, nor did I say stand up to the Democrats.

I'm not even sure why I even try to explain.

coasterqueen replied:
ITA with you. *I* personally would have had a lot more respect for him if he did stand up for what he said he would do. I may not like Obama, but I love this country and I want to see it succeed and if that means, Dem, Republican, Black, White, Purple, Blue, Red then so be it.

And I also agree with your last paragraph, and it is what is needed.

DVFlyer replied: I know about " - " much about politics, but how, exactly, does the president "stand up to congress"?

The whole process seems like an HOA meeting to me. A bunch of people standing around complaining the grass is dead, but no one can agree on how to fix the sprinklers because everyone is too worried about their own best interest.

luvmykids replied:
By telling them he won't sign their crappy bill as is. By telling them the problems with it and having them renegotiate it. By chewing them out for even asking for ridiculous pet projects in such a time of crisis and imploring them to think about the everyday Joe's they are supposed to be working for above their own personal gain. Basically, by marking it all up with his big red pen, sending it back, and requesting a revision.

There could have been negotiation, of course Congress has the power to make life difficult for him by refusing to change the bill, he has the same power by refusing to sign it. Ultimately, some pork would have had to go through or it never would have gone anywhere....but there should have been SOME kind of fight coming from the guy who promised time and time again to do away with politics as usual.

But that is jmho, as I also know about "-" about politics.

Danalana replied: I think he stands up to congress by rejecting things that contain material he said he was going to get rid of...instead of signing it.

coasterqueen replied:
ITA and DvFlyer, I assume you know the basics of how a bill becomes law, correct? The whole process? He could have vetoed it, which in lamens terms would be standing up to congress, then congress would have no choice but to try to amend the bill and send it back through.

DVFlyer replied: Yes, I know the very basics.

From what I've heard if he threatens to veto a bill he doesn't agree with, congress will tell him, "hey, if you veto this bill, we'll never pass anything you put to us".

I don't have a suggestion for a better system, but I wonder how anything gets passed without something "extra" for the people signing it.

And how do we know how much of a fight he put up before he signed "this" version.

BTW- I'm not defending him or his actions- just trying discuss the process.

coasterqueen replied:
Congress does that and they will never get re-elected, and Obama would have the ability to make it known to the public as to why NOTHING would get passed. That would be career suicide on all their parts, but I could see them doing it a little bit. Hey, he campaigned on it, should never done it if he couldn't hold up to it

Obviously he didn't put up a full fight, because that would have been veto'ing the bill, IMO. But that's my opinion, for what it's worth.

jcc64 replied: The whole process seems like an HOA meeting to me. A bunch of people standing around complaining the grass is dead, but no one can agree on how to fix the sprinklers because everyone is too worried about their own best interest.
[QUOTE]

Very nicely put! And everyone can pretend that this is not a Democrat/Republican thing, but it absolutely is and always will be. Obama made a lot of noise about bipartisan-ship during the campaign, and I do believe that was his intention. He put Republicans on his cabinet, he tried to forge relationships in the first few weeks, but it's pretty clear the Republicans have no interest in working with him.
You guys all talk like he's an independent entity, a free agent. This is a 3 branch system, and if you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the members of Congress who put their own re-election interests ahead of what's most needed in this country by loading up that bill.

Danalana replied: Jeanne, even if that's true, he should have known that and not made promises he knew very well he couldn't keep.
I don't get it because people blamed Bush like he was an entity, all to himself...why not now?

Danalana replied: I also wanted to point out that obviously a lot of Americans don't know how real politics work...otherwise, Obama wouldn't have been heralded as the best thing since buttered bread, coming to change America and its politics.

luvmykids replied: [QUOTE=jcc64,Mar 13 2009, 11:03 AM] The whole process seems like an HOA meeting to me. A bunch of people standing around complaining the grass is dead, but no one can agree on how to fix the sprinklers because everyone is too worried about their own best interest.
[QUOTE]

Very nicely put! And everyone can pretend that this is not a Democrat/Republican thing, but it absolutely is and always will be. Obama made a lot of noise about bipartisan-ship during the campaign, and I do believe that was his intention. He put Republicans on his cabinet, he tried to forge relationships in the first few weeks, but it's pretty clear the Republicans have no interest in working with him.
You guys all talk like he's an independent entity, a free agent. This is a 3 branch system, and if you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the members of Congress who put their own re-election interests ahead of what's most needed in this country by loading up that bill. [/QUOTE]
I AM mad at Congress, just as much as I'm mad at Obama for signing the *$&% thing. Of course he would have to make some concessions, that part of politics will never stop. As for it being a Dem/Rep thing, I have no idea because I'm too disgusted to wade through the whole thing so I don't have specific knowledge of who asked for what, which party has more ridiculous spending, blah blah blah. All I know is the last person standing between us and this engorged package didn't do anything but sign on the dotted line.

And fwiw, I'd be just as ticked if this had gone down while Bush was still in office...it's got nothing to do with Obama personally and everything to do with the fact that the man who blithely said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term just heaped it on with money that isn't even our countries to begin with.

He's not a free agent by any means, but he was the last person standing between us and this latest ridiculous spending spree.

luvmykids replied:
Very true....it's been Bush bashing for how long now? Where was Congress then?

Danalana replied: There was no congress when Bush was President...he was the one in total control.
Oh...and what about the crash in the '20s? If we dig hard, we can probably see how that was his fault too

jcc64 replied:

Because he had a Congress full of lapdogs to do his bidding during his administration. Anything he wanted, he got.
Whatever, I'm feeling very much like a lone salmon swimming against the current on this board when it comes to politics.
I need a little break. See you guys soon.

Danalana replied: Well, I can empathize with that...I have felt that way on a number of topics!

redchief replied:
...in his first term. In Bush's second term he had a Democratic Congress, which explains much about how his policies moderated. In fact, the country may have noticed that he seemed to fall off the face of the earth for the most part these last three years.

THIS president is in much the same position as Bush was (on the opposite side of the political fence of course) in his first term. He has a congress of supposedly like-minded politicians who are supposed to do what he wants. Say what you want about G. W., but what he wanted he got coming out of the starting gate. In his first term he nearly doubled military spending and canceled a lot of what the previous administration had put into place to regulate business (I'm not saying it was right or wrong; just that he succeeded in getting what he demanded).

Why then can't the so-called new great communicator pull off such a feat? (I know why, but I'm keeping it to myself for now, for fear I'll tick off the left).

So, with the parentheses finished (I think), here are some more facts on the Omnibus bill.

There are somewhere around 9,000 earmarks in the bill totaling some $5 billion.

$200,000.00 for a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program." Huh?
$1.3 million for Florida's marine sport fisheries (just in case anyone thought I was just picking on the Dems... Florida is generally considered Republican).
$2.1 Million in aid to the Maine lobster fishery.

All-in-all, NOAA got a TON of money in this omnibus bill. I'm all for marine conservatory efforts, but much of the money is earmarked to boost the economies in marine fisheries districts. Those politicians come from long lines of old Washington, and they know how to get the money.

Just in case anyone might think I'm leaving NJ's dirty hands off, NJ PAL got $1.5 million for its programs. I thought PAL relied on community donations? Sen. Lautenberg is one of the best earmarkers in Congress.

St. Francis University and St. Vincent College got $350,000.00 for a "Center for Global Competitiveness." Arlen Specter ® is the king of the congressional earmark. And yes, they're Catholic universities. Pork is pork, even when you try to put a halo on it. Specter has a lot of earmarks in the bill... Give him time, he'll be bragging about them soon enough.

Labor Sec. Hilda Solis and Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood both added earmarks to the bill. You read that right... they're Obama's presidential cabinet members, not members of congress. Tell me Obama couldn't have told them, "No."

Sadly there were earmarks for minority business development. Why sad? Because there were a pitiful three, and they totaled less than a million dollars.

I don't know what the answer is, but for certain no one has turned "Washington upside down" yet as Obama loudly railed in his campaign. I know there are a few that think I'm gloating, but that's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is instead of trying to defend the indefensible, Americans who put him into office, must force him to follow through with his promises.