Good news, Boehner calls out Obama and asks that he keep a campaign pledge and veto this omnibus bill.“If President Obama is truly serious about ending earmarks, he should oppose Senate Democrats’ pork-laden omnibus spending bill and announce he will veto it if necessary. This bill represents exactly what the American people have rejected: more spending, more earmarks, and more big government. Republicans strongly oppose this last-ditch spending spree, a smack in the face to taxpayers at a time when we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Senate Democrats even go so far as to plow more than $1 billion into implementing ObamaCare, despite a growing national revolt against this job-killing health care law.
I looked it up and the Boner has never done an earmark. Not a one, says PolitiFact. I'm not particularly anti-earmark, OK I'm not anti-earmark at all. They're a small part of budget and they help to get legislation passed. Grease for the wheel. But Boehner has the right to make the call, no hypocrisy there.
Not only has Boner not asked for earmarks, but President Limp Dick promised to address the problem: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbr7S5e0iyo"]YouTube - Obama: Fiscal Discipline Requires Transparency On Earmarks[/ame] Time for Obama to show some leadership and veto this pork laden omnibus bill.
Well I don't think he can do that. He spent his political capital on being the guy to get this tax deal done, he'd be the goof of the young century if he killed off what he created. This is a power play. He stuffed this bill down the Dems' throats, and they're stuffing back in return.
You are so cute when you act naive. Every ********ing congress in history. . . every one . . . . passes and omnibus bill like this when they are wrapping up the entire two year congress. But feel free to get all incredulous now and blame it on Obama.
Republicans are against earmarks. Especially Republicans from Texas, I hear it all the time. Except when they aren't. "The bill is loaded with over 6,000 earmarks from both Democrats AND Republicans and is needed to be passed by Saturday in order to keep the government running. It seems ole RINO Cornyn had requested $16 million in earmarks himself. When pressed by Hemmer, to defend his earmarks after complaining about them, Cornyn who appeared nervous responded to Hemmer with: “I can but, I am not going to, cause I am going to vote against this bill” http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...own-earmarks-in-the-pork-filled-omnibus-bill/ I'm so proud.
And correct me if I'm wrong but if passed this bill would freeze 2011 spending at 2010 levels - levels that were inflated because of stimulus spending.
ABC News had a good go at him at his news conference yesterday: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/congress-revolt-outrage-pork-projects-12410621 testy little fella that Senator from Texas.
And you're wrong: The 2009 federal budget spent 3.1 trillion. The 2010 federal budget spent 3.5 trillion. The difference between the two is the revenue coming in. 09 was a net of (407 billion) 10 was a net of (1.3 trillion)
Just an FYI the deficit that Obama was handed by Bush (to include the Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan) was approx $1.4T. The 2009 Budget of $3.1T does NOT include the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan. So you're right, I was wrong. That number is closer to $3.6T for the 2009 Budget - handed to Obama by Bush.
You see steve-o, when you're wrong, why not just admit it graciously like apoo, instead of humiliating yourself while defending the indefensible, as you're wont to do.
I admitted to being wrong on another thread. It's a cultural thing. Dems can admit to being wrong, Reeps cannot. It's related to the science discussion -- Dems embrace the scientific method, in which failure is acceptable, and Reeps tend toward faith-based approaches that do not admit mistakes. That makes Dems weaker in negotations and often as well in leadership, but it helps them in that they have a stronger grasp on facts, and are better equipped to deal with change. Yes of course it's a generalization but it's a correct generalization.
Wait a second... The approx deficit before including the wars was .4 trillion. With the wars it is 1.4 trillion. The 2009 budget w/o wars = 3.1 trillion. With the wars it is 3.6 trillion. Either you have just made a case against government spending as stimulus - for every dollar you spend you lose 2 or there is a serious disconnect in your numbers. I'm guessing the latter. Because that'd be the magnanimous thing to do So have I. No, its not.
We gotta congratulate ourselves because the opposition won't. I look at the Reagan record, I say tax cuts hmmm. Raised the deficit but they had their merits. The opposition looks at the Clinton record ... and never any credit given. Ever. There's nothing they can learn from Clinton. I'm tired of it. Tired of being reasonable and listening to the other man's views and getting sold bullcrap in return.
At least you admit your prior numbers were off, but no that's not accurate, because you're not including a significant loss of tax revenue. We lost approx $600B in tax revenue due to the recession. That's a trillion right there, and then you add in the war costs and you have your approximate $1.4T deficit. How about neither? Obama hardly touched Federal outlays for 2009. The Stimulus of 780B was spread out over a number of years, to the point where it added $145B to the 2009 Budget. That's basically the only thing he really did on his own. You seem to want to pin our deficit problem on Obama. It's factually incorrect. He's been a victim of past idiocy - nothing more. Let's see where these actual numbers come from shall we? 2009 Budget (Bush) Mandatory Spending - $1.89T Discretionary Spending - $1.21T War - $600B (not included in actual budget) Actual Deficit - $1.4T 2010 Budget (Obama) + 15% Mandatory Spending - $2.2T Medicare +7% Medicaid + 12% Social Security +4.9% Discretionary Spending - $1.3T (+13.1%) War -$663B Basically, Obama reduced reduced discretionary spending in comparison to Bush. The numbers don't necessarily show it because the Bush administration deceived us about that by not including the cost of war. The proof? 2010 Deficit - $1.2T. It went DOWN from 2009 levels. Let's look at the 2011 Budget, as proposed by Obama and never passed Mandatory spending - $2.4T Discretionary spending - $1.4T Deficit - $1.2T --- so there you go. For all the talk of Obama being a tax & spend liberal, he's actually slightly reduced the deficit, and kept discretionary spending fairly close to level, with some money spent for stimulus. Oh, and before the stimulus were were losing 700K jobs per month, and having negative GDP growth. Since the stimulus we've added over a million jobs and have had positive GDP growth for quite a while.
I'll come back and revisit this, but the 2009 budget for Discretionary Spending, Department of Defense is 515.4 billion. 2010 Discretionary Spending, Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations) is 663 billion. Your numbers are still incorrect. Think about it.