PDA

View Full Version : Obama Wait A Minute...Didn't Obama Say the Era Of Earmarks Was Over?


RINGLEADER
01-29-2010, 11:11 AM
Didn't he say that he wouldn't sign a bill with earmarks? Now he's saying that earmark requests should be "public, before they come up for a vote"?

Another broken Obama promise...

Change.

Hope.

orange
01-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Didn't he say that he wouldn't sign a bill with earmarks?

No. No he didn't.

That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to "reform" it, and eliminate "screwy" or wasteful earmarks.

Boehner, however, was more careful than the New York Times. His claim that Obama "campaigned against this type of legislation" could be read a number of ways.

Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Boehner meant that Obama had broken his campaign pledges, referenced on the White House Web site , to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." That's a reasonable interpretation of what Boehner said.

...

The closest he came to saying he would eliminate earmarks, as far as we could find, was when he said, in the third presidential debate , "Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem." (Given his other campaign statements on earmarks, it's clear he meant "screwy," or wasteful, earmarks should be eliminated, not all earmarks.)

much more at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/

The Mad Crapper
01-29-2010, 11:38 AM
He's a filthy liar.

bkkcoh
01-29-2010, 12:43 PM
No. No he didn't.

That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to "reform" it, and eliminate "screwy" or wasteful earmarks.

Boehner, however, was more careful than the New York Times. His claim that Obama "campaigned against this type of legislation" could be read a number of ways.

Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Boehner meant that Obama had broken his campaign pledges, referenced on the White House Web site , to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." That's a reasonable interpretation of what Boehner said.

...

The closest he came to saying he would eliminate earmarks, as far as we could find, was when he said, in the third presidential debate , "Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem." (Given his other campaign statements on earmarks, it's clear he meant "screwy," or wasteful, earmarks should be eliminated, not all earmarks.)

much more at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/

Unfortunately, I think the congressmen have earmarks down to a science. It looks like the process has been stream-lined and reformed.

mlyonsd
01-29-2010, 12:51 PM
Didn't he say that he wouldn't sign a bill with earmarks? Now he's saying that earmark requests should be "public, before they come up for a vote"?

Another broken Obama promise...

Change.

Hope.

He said he'd go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely.

So I take that to mean every earmark he signs into law he things is necessary.

Hydrae
01-29-2010, 02:34 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. I thought earmarks were just the way that the money already allocated was to be spent. So if we have no earmarks the money will be spent anyway just without congressional oversight.

If I am totally wrong, please educate me.

If I am right, this is much ado about nothing.

Taco John
01-29-2010, 02:35 PM
I think he said something about wanting to wait a year before doing anything drastic.

RINGLEADER
01-29-2010, 02:52 PM
No. No he didn't....

The closest he came to saying he would eliminate earmarks, as far as we could find, was when he said, in the third presidential debate , "Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem." (Given his other campaign statements on earmarks, it's clear he meant "screwy," or wasteful, earmarks should be eliminated, not all earmarks.) [/I]



Yes, you're right. He only said he was banning them relative to the "stimulus".

Typical Obama.

He wastes $800 billion but manages to find something he thinks he can use to sound like a deficit hawk. He really does think the American people are stupid.

Hydrae
01-30-2010, 05:44 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. I thought earmarks were just the way that the money already allocated was to be spent. So if we have no earmarks the money will be spent anyway just without congressional oversight.

If I am totally wrong, please educate me.

If I am right, this is much ado about nothing.

I guess I can rest easy that I was correct in my understanding of earmarks and that all this moaning about earmarks is indeed much ado about nothing.

ChiefaRoo
01-30-2010, 06:36 PM
Obama lied = the budget died.

RINGLEADER
01-30-2010, 11:08 PM
I guess I can rest easy that I was correct in my understanding of earmarks and that all this moaning about earmarks is indeed much ado about nothing.

Obama brought it up.

If people like it then he's responsible.

If people don't like it then it's Bush's fault.

Rinse and repeat.

JohnnyV13
01-31-2010, 03:56 PM
Typical Obama.

He wastes $800 billion but manages to find something he thinks he can use to sound like a deficit hawk. He really does think the American people are stupid.

Can you really blame him? He has overwhelming evidence that the American people are stupid.

They elected him....didn't they?

Norman Einstein
01-31-2010, 04:57 PM
He probably did so in the same light as he commented on the no-bid contracts.