Obama backs pet projects and signs spending bill

You know, folks, I was all over Bush about his spending, and you know what else? I thought nobody could be more irresponsible than Bush, and spend more than he did. Damn, was I ever wrong. I will grant Obama at least this much, though - He didn't try to mislead everybody by hiding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not including all that in the budget, like Bush did. But that is little consolation to me, as the monetary bleeding of our economy shows no sign of abating.

Article is here.

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

danarhea said:

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

Click to expand...

The problem I have with Obama's spending is that while Irresponsible spending for the U.S. is better than Irresponsible spending for Foreign uses, it is still IRRESPONSIBLE.

He is doing too much too quickly. I am not an economy expert, but to me this is making me worried.

TheNextEra said:

The problem I have with Obama's spending is that while Irresponsible spending for the U.S. is better than Irresponsible spending for Foreign uses, it is still IRRESPONSIBLE.

He is doing too much too quickly. I am not an economy expert, but to me this is making me worried.

Click to expand...

I am not so worry about additional spending right now, additional spending in the short term will only help the economy.

I am worried about the big plans going forward. These new entitlements will saddle us with much higher debt as the economy is recovering, and as we should be paying down debt.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I am not so worry about additional spending right now, additional spending in the short term will only help the economy.

I am worried about the big plans going forward. These new entitlements will saddle us with much higher debt as the economy is recovering, and as we should be paying down debt.

Click to expand...

I disagree, too much spending in short term can DEFINITELY affect long term.

Here's the thing I said in another thread. A friend I know would love to have the money to send his 3 kids through college, home payed off, Vacations for the next 10-20 years, cars payed off, and vacation home payed off RIGHT NOW.

The simple fact is he can't get all that done RIGHT NOW on his budget.

Like it or not the U.S. SHOULD be on some sort of budget as well, and as much as I would like to see many of the programs Obama wants implemented, we simply do not have the money to do so RIGHT NOW.

Again, whether I like it or not, irrespnsible spending is still irrespniisible.

I would like to see the whole world funded to the point, noone goes without food, water, shelter, education, technology, college education, and owning their own home, but I cannot do this on my budget.

It isn't a matter of good will, it is a matter of what we can or cannot spend on these programs.

In the long term, we stand the great chance of devaluating the dollar on the global market, going bust on many government run programs, and making it worse for the U.S. economy.

Here is the problem, I know how the government runs things. I was forced to deal with it for many many years in the military.

It takes triplicate forms to change my address assuming it even got passed the mounds of paperwork on someones desk and not into the trashcan.

I am liberal leaning and while I don't mind seeing money spent on the homefront, I want it done responsibly.

I like Bill Clinton for one reason. He was a moderate liberal, that worked with congress. Obama to me seems to be RUN by congress or at worse in cooperation of.

Enough with the spending, Obama isn't even giving enough time to see if the spending works or whether to abandon it and go some other path.

I'm glad he signed it. Some very good national security and state and local public safety projects are going to get done. I'm just tickled!

:2wave:

Lerxst said:

I'm glad he signed it. Some very good national security and state and local public safety projects are going to get done. I'm just tickled!

:2wave:

Click to expand...

Yes, some good things were passed, others not so good.

Can you tell me what the efficiency of good things passed versus good things passed?

TheNextEra said:

Yes, some good things were passed, others not so good.

Can you tell me what the efficiency of good things passed versus good things passed?

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. Couldn't even venture a guess. But I know a lot of good men and women developed a lot of good projects that got on that bill. So I know it's not all wasteful spending.

danarhea said:

You know, folks, I was all over Bush about his spending, and you know what else? I thought nobody could be more irresponsible than Bush, and spend more than he did. Damn, was I ever wrong. I will grant Obama at least this much, though - He didn't try to mislead everybody by hiding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not including all that in the budget, like Bush did. But that is little consolation to me, as the monetary bleeding of our economy shows no sign of abating.

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

Click to expand...

1) He put the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan on-budget, but he's still cooking the books to the tune of $100b+ by keeping SS and Medicare on-budget.

2)

On another potentially controversial matter, the president also issued a "signing statement" with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He has criticized President George W. Bush for often using such statements to claim the right to ignore portions of new laws, and on Monday he said his administration wouldn't follow those issued by Bush unless authorized by the new attorney general.

Click to expand...

****ing lol's.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I am not so worry about additional spending right now, additional spending in the short term will only help the economy.

I am worried about the big plans going forward. These new entitlements will saddle us with much higher debt as the economy is recovering, and as we should be paying down debt.

Click to expand...

Then why not let the citizens do the spending?

danarhea said:

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

Click to expand...

Glad to see "change" has come to Washington.

Lerxst said:

I'm glad he signed it. Some very good national security and state and local public safety projects are going to get done. I'm just tickled!

:2wave:

Click to expand...

I am just afraid the projects you see funding for in the LEO and HS fields could have been much more if there were far less of these idiotic programs included in these bills.


furthermore, worthy programs like the ones you keep hinting at get a negative connotation and view attached to money for tattoo removal for crack whores.

danarhea said:

You know, folks, I was all over Bush about his spending, and you know what else? I thought nobody could be more irresponsible than Bush, and spend more than he did. Damn, was I ever wrong. I will grant Obama at least this much, though - He didn't try to mislead everybody by hiding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not including all that in the budget, like Bush did. But that is little consolation to me, as the monetary bleeding of our economy shows no sign of abating.

Article is here.

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

Click to expand...

You know how I feel; but no one should be surprised at this level of spending without any debate on how to pay for it all. Obama was honest about what he would do when he got into office.

It defies anyone's wildest imagination what it will cost the tax payers of this country to pay all this back.

There is NO way the markets will recover when the analysts figure in the interest on the debt, new taxes on businesses, carbon taxes and the inflationary impact of printing money.

I hope I am wrong; but on this one, I feel pretty confident I am right.

TheNextEra said:

I disagree, too much spending in short term can DEFINITELY affect long term.

Here's the thing I said in another thread. A friend I know would love to have the money to send his 3 kids through college, home payed off, Vacations for the next 10-20 years, cars payed off, and vacation home payed off RIGHT NOW.

The simple fact is he can't get all that done RIGHT NOW on his budget.

Like it or not the U.S. SHOULD be on some sort of budget as well, and as much as I would like to see many of the programs Obama wants implemented, we simply do not have the money to do so RIGHT NOW.

Again, whether I like it or not, irrespnsible spending is still irrespniisible.

I would like to see the whole world funded to the point, noone goes without food, water, shelter, education, technology, college education, and owning their own home, but I cannot do this on my budget.

It isn't a matter of good will, it is a matter of what we can or cannot spend on these programs.

In the long term, we stand the great chance of devaluating the dollar on the global market, going bust on many government run programs, and making it worse for the U.S. economy.

Here is the problem, I know how the government runs things. I was forced to deal with it for many many years in the military.

It takes triplicate forms to change my address assuming it even got passed the mounds of paperwork on someones desk and not into the trashcan.

I am liberal leaning and while I don't mind seeing money spent on the homefront, I want it done responsibly.

I like Bill Clinton for one reason. He was a moderate liberal, that worked with congress. Obama to me seems to be RUN by congress or at worse in cooperation of.

Enough with the spending, Obama isn't even giving enough time to see if the spending works or whether to abandon it and go some other path.

Click to expand...

We are surprisingly now in agreement but for different reasons. I think Government programs are harmful regardless of how they are passed, you think they are a good idea.

But the truly irresponsible issue that overrides everything else is the lack of honesty from the Democrats and Obama. Where is the honesty about how to pay for these programs? We have watched Obama pass over $1.2 trillion in spending without ONE debate as to how to pay for it.

Yes we have heard the rhetoric he is famous for suggesting that they will fund some of the cost by cutting wasteful Government programs.

We heard the same false rhetoric from Clinton and Gore, and when it came down to cuts, it was the military that bore the brunt of the cuts.

Every program they will look at will involve layoffs; and I am certain that it is the LAST thing this Administration will do at this time because they promised to "create" 3.5 million jobs by the end of their first term.

The cost to the American taxpayer will be HUGE and cover a broad spectrum of the tax paying public regardless of the political double talk we have seen. If you taxed the top 100 wealthiest individuals in the US 100%, it still would not be enough to pay for these new spending programs.

In addition, increased taxes on corporations and carbon taxes will be passed onto the very people Obama proclaims to want to help. Capital gains tax increases will affect capital investment and thus impact business and job growth and to top it all off, States like California are passing tax increases that more than swallow up the meager sums Obama has promised everyone will get back from the Feds who make less than $250K.

This fantasy Liberals and Democrats are wallowing in will bite ALL of us in the ass and suspend any possibly economic recovery until these policies are reversed or suspended. Americans will truly be reaping what they sowed by electing these naive numbskulls into power.

Truth Detector said:

I think Government programs are harmful regardless of how they are passed, you think they are a good idea.

Click to expand...

I don't think ALL government programs are good.

I think some are good, because I have seen first hand the people that they have helped. I've seen honest people go on welfare until they get back on their feet and get off it. The government programs helped with that.

The problem comes with those that abuse programs and I don't deny there are many that do. We should not have 3rd and now 4th generation people on welfare. Either they are abusing the system, or they fell through the cracks and something needs to be re-evaluated to help them get off welfare.

As for the stimulus, I agree and have even said I do not like all of what Obama has passed or I don't think it should have been passed right now wince we can't afford it.

I am for Universal Health care, but not right now we cannot afford it and it should not be on agenda. What I think needs to be looked at is revamping the health care problems we have right now. Maybe if those were fixed we wouldn't even need the universal health care. And if it cannot be fixed or revamped, then we can start to look at UHC.

We should not be allowing illegal aliens to use the health care system for free and then force John Smith who is at the poverty level being forced to pay because he doesn't qualify for government help. I actually saw this personally.

I will also agree that many of these programs should not be done simply because the government doesn't have a good handle on the ones it does now. All we are adding is just more bureaucracy, and less efficiency.

Goobieman said:

Glad to see "change" has come to Washington.

Click to expand...

Wordsmiths always keep their promise. But it'll shock ya when its done.

1. Obama promised to reform earmarks, not eliminate them entirely in the middle of an impending government shutdown; even reforming them is really the Congress's prerogative, not his.

2. What you call "pet projects" are, by an overwhelming majority, projects that are actually helpful, and create jobs.

3. They come to about 2 percent of the total bill.

4. And a huge proportion of them were forced in there by Republicans.

5. This bill shouldn't even have been on the table now -- Bush should have signed it months ago. Too bad he was on a mental vacation for the last several months of his presidency.


Glad I could help!

danarhea said:

You know, folks, I was all over Bush about his spending, and you know what else? I thought nobody could be more irresponsible than Bush, and spend more than he did. Damn, was I ever wrong. I will grant Obama at least this much, though - He didn't try to mislead everybody by hiding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not including all that in the budget, like Bush did. But that is little consolation to me, as the monetary bleeding of our economy shows no sign of abating.

Article is here.

So, what do you think about the spending bill that was signed today?

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. Couldn't even venture a guess. But I know a lot of good men and women developed a lot of good projects that got on that bill. So I know it's not all wasteful spending.

Click to expand...

In otherwords, "I'm far too distracted with the Messiah to even address the issue of pork projects being included." :doh

Lets see how many times we see an excuse designed to give The Obama a pass

HelloDollyLlama said:

1. Obama promised to reform earmarks, not eliminate them entirely in the middle of an impending government shutdown; even reforming them is really the Congress's prerogative, not his.

Click to expand...

2 passes:
-There is no impending government shutdown
-The Obama can veto any legislation He wants, forcing congress to eliminate spending He doesn't want

What you call "pet projects" are, by an overwhelming majority, projects that are actually helpful, and create jobs.

Click to expand...

Another excuse: "Its OK because (IMHO) these are GOOD earmarks"

They come to about 2 percent of the total bill.

Click to expand...

Another excuse. "Its OK because there arent that many"

And a huge proportion of them were forced in there by Republicans.

Click to expand...

Probably a lie, and certainly another excuse
"Its not The Obama's fault because the GOP did it"
Never mind that the GOP cannot force anything into legislation, and the GOP did not force The Obama to sign it.

This bill shouldn't even have been on the table now -- Bush should have signed it months ago.

Click to expand...

Another excuse - an extrarodinarily lame attempt to pass the blame to Bush regarding a bill that did not exist until after he left office.

But hey -- you keep drinking the kool-aid your Messiah gives you.

And a huge proportion of them were forced in there by Republicans.

Click to expand...

I believe I saw a figure that landed the earmarks at 60% D and 40% R. So while a large portion of earmarks were R earmarks, an even larger amount were apparently "forced" in there by D's.

Why the selective outrage against the R earmarks?

WI Crippler said:

Why the selective outrage against the R earmarks?

Click to expand...

Partisan bigotry?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I am just afraid the projects you see funding for in the LEO and HS fields could have been much more if there were far less of these idiotic programs included in these bills.

Click to expand...

You'll see no argument from me on this. In fact the public safety oriented bills I lobby for are actually relatively small ($500,000 to $1 million each tops) compared to many of the pork barrel amendments on the spending bills. We have to fight for every penny because we don't donate to campaigns. It's grass roots all the way, we get our Congressional support through a campaign of support letters and phone calls from LE, public safety, and local political figures.

furthermore, worthy programs like the ones you keep hinting at get a negative connotation and view attached to money for tattoo removal for crack whores.

Click to expand...

I agree with this as well. It's why always harp that not all earmarks are bad or pork.

+1 for the Rev.

HelloDollyLlama said:

1. Obama promised to reform earmarks, not eliminate them entirely in the middle of an impending government shutdown; even reforming them is really the Congress's prerogative, not his.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

2. What you call "pet projects" are, by an overwhelming majority, projects that are actually helpful, and create jobs.

Click to expand...

I am kind of on board with this part. I have my opinions on the usefulness of large transportation earmarks that are out of sync with the actual traffic issues of a region, and certain research and development earmarks make me raise an eyebrow.

3. They come to about 2 percent of the total bill.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it's a very small portion, which is why it's a running joke in Washington that there is so much focus on home state earmarks and very little on poorly managed programs that sucks tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that, if cleaned up and made more efficient, would actually offset home state earmarks.

4. And a huge proportion of them were forced in there by Republicans.

Click to expand...

Nothing was "forced." They were negotiated. The Democrats don't hold a filibuster proof majority nor do they think they will hold the majority forever. Why do you think Reid and Co. stopped Pelosi from stripping the bill and operating off of a CR for the fiscal year? It's the political negotiation process. Each side know the minority will get fewer earmarks, but they never cut them out completely. They need cooperation and earmark negotiation helps keep that cooperative spirit in tact. Earmarks mean dollars and votes back home. And that...you don't **** with too much.

5. This bill shouldn't even have been on the table now -- Bush should have signed it months ago. Too bad he was on a mental vacation for the last several months of his presidency.

Click to expand...

Congress was responsible for keeping it from Bush, specifically the Democrats. They didn't want him vetoing the bill (as he threatened to do in order to strangle the Dems, which in turn made several Republicans with earmark interest say "hold the phone"). They knew that they could negotiate a bill that Obama would sign.

scourge99 said:

In otherwords, "I'm far too distracted with the Messiah to even address the issue of pork projects being included." :doh

Click to expand...

What? You don't really need to inject anything in to what I said. I was being very frank with my answer. The only ones who seem distracted by Obama are people like you who can't seem to focus on the words that people actually type. You let your "anti-Obama" flavor your post to the point that it didn't make any sense.

But you keep reading into it what you want. Forgive me for not knowing the exact percentage of "good amendments vs. bad amendments" on a 1,300+ page Omnibus spending bill. Yeah, it's my glazed over "Obama" glasses that are the issue here. Seriously, the whole "Obamabot" strategy is really very played out on this particular board.

:roll:

Lerxst said:

You'll see no argument from me on this. In fact the public safety oriented bills I lobby for are actually relatively small ($500,000 to $1 million each tops) compared to many of the pork barrel amendments on the spending bills. We have to fight for every penny because we don't donate to campaigns. It's grass roots all the way, we get our Congressional support through a campaign of support letters and phone calls from LE, public safety, and local political figures.


I agree with this as well. It's why always harp that not all earmarks are bad or pork.

+1 for the Rev.

Click to expand...

Every single person asking for an earmark believes that their particular project is worthwhile. The problem isn't that they aren't necessarily worthwhile, its that the federal government shouldn't be lumping your projects in with the budget and then holding the operations of the country hostage unless they're all voted up or down together.

If your projects are as great as they seem, they should be able to stand on their own merit. The fact that you like them doesn't justify the earmark process.

Lerxst said:

What? You don't really need to inject anything in to what I said. I was being very frank with my answer. The only ones who seem distracted by Obama are people like you who can't seem to focus on the words that people actually type.

Click to expand...

Aren't you even a little curious about the pet projects? That is what everyone has been up in arms about afterall.

You let your "anti-Obama" flavor your posts to the point that they don't even make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, the man I voted for is thus far a big turd sandwich. No doubt about it. I still hold out hope but so far he has shown that he either doesn't have the balls to take a stand or is 100% in agreement with the crape that has been passed in Congress.

But I'll hold my breath longer and give him a chance... he still has 4 years left.

But you keep reading into it what you want. Forgive me for not knowing the exact percentage of "good amendments vs. bad amendments" on a 1,300+ page Omnibus spending bill.

Click to expand...

how about you just one?