Media figures advance false claim that Obama is breaking campaign promise of no earmarks
SUMMARY: Media figures have advanced the false claim that President Obama promised during his campaign to stop earmark spending and is breaking that promise by signing the omnibus spending bill currently being considered in the Senate. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
In recent days, media figures -- including CNN's Campbell Brown and Kitty Pilgrim, and Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, and Bill O'Reilly -- have advanced the false claim that President Obama promised during the 2008 presidential campaign to stop earmark spending and is breaking that promise by signing the omnibus spending bill currently being considered in the Senate. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Obama actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.
During the March 5 edition of Fox News' On the Record, claiming to have "done a little research," host Greta Van Susteren cropped comments Obama made during a September 22, 2008, campaign event to advance the falsehood that he promised to end earmarks. Van Susteren asserted of Obama, "[W]hether it was at debates with Senator McCain or even at a campaign event on September 22, in which he says, 'As President, I will make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects' -- basically, he goes into this whole thing about he will not let earmarks or pork-barrel projects go forward. I don't think it's courageous, I think it's keeping your promise." But in his September 22, 2008, comments, Obama did not promise to put an end to earmarks; rather, he promised to increase transparency. Obama stated: "As President, I will make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because when I am president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy" [emphasis added].
Van Susteren's comments echo those she made on the March 4 edition of her show, when she claimed, "President Obama said during his campaign that there weren't going to be any earmarks, and he's now trying to say that this is really a Bush bill that happens to come across his desk, the Oval Office now, when he could veto it. He doesn't have to have it. He could draw a line in the sand now."
Other media figures have also advanced the myth that Obama is breaking his promise to end earmarks:
- During the March 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed, "Obama said, 'No earmarks.' Now there are 9,000 earmarks." During the segment, Fox News' Neil Cavuto also claimed, "Here is what galls me, though. I mean, this is why there's a disconnect. There's an inconsistency. You have the president saying, 'I'm going to stop the waste and the earmarks,' but prepared to sign all of this."
- During the March 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Kitty Pilgrim asserted, "With more than 8,000 pet projects, it seems the Obama administration's promise to end pork-barrel spending is broken."
- During the March 4 edition of CNN's No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown claimed, "While it's fair to criticize the president after he campaigned on a promise to end earmarks in spending, it's important to remember who put him in that position this time around."
As Media Matters documented, a March 1 New York Times article reported that Obama made "campaign promises to put an end to the practice" of earmarks. Echoing the falsehood, Times columnist Maureen Dowd falsely claimed in her March 3 column that "[i]n one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign."
From the March 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. Let's get to the -- [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV]. He's your favorite guy. You like him.
CAVUTO: Yes, I do.
O'REILLY: Didn't you guys go fishing together in the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead? Where --
CAVUTO: That would be me. Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Now, this guy -- you know, 9,000 earmarks. Even some Democratic senators are saying, it's just -- you can't do it, but he doesn't care. He doesn't care.
CAVUTO: Well, to be fair, I mean, 40 percent of them are Republican. And here is what galls me, though. I mean, this is why there's a disconnect. There's an inconsistency. You have the president saying, "I'm going to stop the waste and the earmarks" --
O'REILLY: But he doesn't.
CAVUTO: -- but prepared to sign all of this. His Treasury secretary -- I'm going to go after the rich tax cheats, totally ignoring -- hello? You know, I'm just saying you can't preach and say one thing and do another.
O'REILLY: But he gets away with it. Obama said, "No earmarks." Now there are 9,000 earmarks and 68 percent of -- 63 percent of people like him. He's getting away with it.
From the March 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
KITTY PILGRIM: Tonight, the Senate votes on the $410 billion federal spending bill. With more than 8,000 pet projects, it seems the Obama administration's promise to end pork-barrel spending is broken. [CNN senior political analyst] Bill Schneider reports.
[Begin video clip]
SCHNEIDER: Last year, John McCain vowed to end earmarks for special interest projects that members of Congress add to spending bills often at the request of lobbyists or contributors.
McCAIN: This is a bipartisan disease.
OBAMA: I want earmarks reform just like John McCain does.
SCHNEIDER: Congress is now voting on this year's budget. What's in it?
From the March 5 edition of Fox News' On the Record:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right now, a couple of things. One is, you say that he made the remark last week about the earmarks, and the second thing you said is that you think it would be courageous.
I have a little different take on that, because I've done a little research, and there are a number of times -- whether it was at debates with Senator McCain or even at a campaign event on September 22, in which he says, "As President, I will make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects"--- basically, he goes into this whole thing about he will not let earmarks or pork-barrel projects go forward. I don't think it's courageous, I think it's keeping your promise.
From the March 4 edition of Fox News' On the Record:
VAN SUSTEREN: The other big problem with it too is the fact that President Obama said during his campaign that there weren't going to be any earmarks, and he's now trying to say that this is really a Bush bill that happens to come across his desk, the Oval Office now, when he could veto it. He doesn't have to have it.
KARL ROVE (former Bush White House senior adviser): Absolutely.
VAN SUSTEREN: He could draw a line in the sand now.
ROVE: I've got a column about this, too.
From the March 4 edition of CNN's No Bias, No Bull:
BROWN: The president trying to save his political capital for bigger battles will likely bite the bullet, hold his nose, and sign this thing.
While it's fair to criticize the president after he campaigned on a promise to end earmarks in spending, it's important to remember who put him in that position this time around.
It may only add up to a measly $7 billion and change in additional taxpayer money, but, when every penny counts, Congress would be well-served to see which way the winds are blowing when it comes to the anger of voters.
As a citizen I draw my own conclusions. Can you print here all of the earmarks? This way we can see how many, who is requesting etc. Thank you!
I find it extremely telling that there are no Obama supporters posting anything against this.
wrong again. look up the definition of earmark in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)
put that in and read the article, pleas to self educate yourself on what it really is.....
$7 Billion is quite a drop from the all-time high of $29 Billion in Pork barrel spending in 2006. Infact, from 2001-2006 over $140 Billion was spent on Pork. During this period President Bush didn't veto a single piece of legislation brought to him. $7 Billion is also the lowest total spent on pork since 1993, when that total was $6.6 Billion, not adjusted for inflation. It's a great start in the right direction.
If I read it correctly, there is about 7 billion in earmarks and 40%, or roughly 3 billion, belong to the republican* party. Let's just cut that and everyone will be happy.
*DISCLAIMER: While Snoopy periodically uses republican, for all practical purposes republican refers only to elected officials. Also, it is the belief of Snoopy that with the exception of 3 senators and a handful of congressmen who red staters refer to as RINO's all the elected officials are part of the right wing nut machine. If Snoopy should interchange between "republican" and "right wing republican" rest assured he is directing his comments at the right wing who have ruined this country. This disclaimer was bought to you to clear up any perceptions promoted by the obtuse.
Nice disclaimer, Snoop. Pre-empting your little ankle-biter?
Yeah, like it?
I think I'm on his enemies list now. (sniffle!). I hope he downloaded more than one Limbaughlycs (pronounced lim-BAUGH-lycs) this time. He only had one that he kept repeating over and over last night.
Snoopy....
Your a bad man.... in good way!
Impressive.....but I know you are twitching like a man suffring from turrets syndrome, just dying to unload a lost of nazi references.
I guess the limbaughtron is still broken. You're still posting the same garbage that you posted yesterday, the day before, and the day before that. You'd think that that drug addled promoter of fascist policies would break loose a few of that $400 million to get his gear in working order.
how could he be way off........when earmarks are essentially instructions and directions on where money is budgeted to be going to.......
ill put this in small simple words so that you can understand me.....
imagine yourself walking into.....idk....a bank. and you have say 100 dollars but you have multiple transactions to make. so you tell the teller specific instructions on where each dollar will go to. say 20 to a credit card bill, 40 into savings, 40 more into checking.
from what i have read......that is what an earmark is. a set of instructions.
your analogy is only half right. Imagine yourself walking into a band with 100 dollars, of somebody else's money, 20 here, 20 there, 40 on that......and where you instruct them to spend somebody else's money depends not on necessity or priority, but rather which recipient will give you something in return, that's your priority. On the other hand, if you have 100 dollars of your own to spend and there ain't much more after that, you are far more likely to prioritize and avoid unnecessaries, because you have too.
Agreed, but SOMEONE has to decide where tax money should go. We can't have 351 million different ideas about where to direct it. Gotta trust somebody, and hopefully our democratically elected officials can do it well..
no argument, but in extremely tough economic times when people are being laid off right and left, and nearly everybody else is sitting on pins and needles wondering if they're next, they watch every penny they spend, because they have too. So there is no more money for politicians to spend on their election insurance funding pet projects, somethings gotta give. the taxpayers can't do it anymore, they are tapped out.
Ok... JamesB.... your not paying attention in class...
For fun and simplistic purposes... I will say it costs $10,000,000 to pay for the building of a road of a specific length...
$10,000,000 to buid a school and $20,000,000 to build a hospital
There are 500,000 of us, if each of us gave $20 for the road, $20 for the school, and $40 for the hospital... we still have $20 for other stuff....
A road, a school, and a hospital are now there for us all to use.... that will make money, two will hires us to make said money and the other will allow us to get to and from...
But from what you say.... we all keep our $100 instead and spend it on things that we might not actually need...
Only now... there is no redeeming value in that spent $100... 500,000 playstations are not likely to be of much help... but now... there is no school to send the kids to... no where for you to go if you or they get hurt.... not to mention no way to get there with that car you bought with that $100 you decided to keep for yourself.
Curious... how or where did that money come from? Did it just appear? Or did you work to earn it? Likely the case... hmmm... how did that business get started? Rugged individualism or society?
Hey JamesB.... if you plan on running for public office anytime soon.... please stay as far away from my area (Northern Illinois) as possible!!
Fine, I have no problem specifically committing my $80 for the school, the road and the hospital, done, simple. but gee, somehow I give them my $80 for what you just earmarked, and then magically those in charge come back later and say, well we need $80 more because your first $80 went to, well, ahh, some other "investment government necessity", so sorry, we need more. And then liberals wonder why I say forget it, I already gave you $80, so now it's up to you to cut somewhere else and come up with the $80 yourself - yet liberals want to continue to feed the beast and then say if I don't want to pony up $80 more, then I hate schools, and roads, and hospitals. When what I hate is waste and unaccountability.
"When what I hate is waste and unaccountability."
Then I offer you this -----> www.recovery.gov
Make your voice heard if you feel the money is ill spent... but at least from this website... you can actually see it being spent!
Your right... wasteful and secretive spending is wrong... but at least President Obama is trying to change that!
Its a start
yeah right.
Seriously... these people who rant about 'no earmarks' would find themselves in a pretty pickle if no spending occured at all. What the duece do they think DRIVES the economy?
Man you just got crushed like a roach by James. Phewee that had SMOKE rolling off it man!
I guess that you left out the appropriated money conveniently enough. There is a little town called Union, PA. They have been given $5000 to start up their new homeless shelter from the wastulus. Funny thing is, this small suburban town has no homeless people for a shelter. The local beaurocrat was contacted and their response was "Use your imagination with the money. Be creative."
So with that in mind, this is $5000. Think this is just an isloated incident? Wait for more, I'll keep you posted as they pop up.
Sources please- how thw heck does ANYBODY get a shelter up and running for only 5K? They don't! Please keep us posted, thanks!
Liebuster's mom spent $5K to set up a homeless shelter - she finished her basement.
Hi-Yoooooooooooo !!!! See, Liebuster's good for something.
Churches amd other faith-based charities do things like that all the time. They, as some other person said "get creative". They do mission work on local contributions. You know, the same "faith based thing" that Jesse Jackson wanted to castrate Obama over? THe probelm is that liberals in government can't enviion anything being done that doesn't have six zeros tied to it. Unfortunately, at least 60 percent of the congress and half the senate are themselves "zeros".
I think the pork-barrel spending has been reformed substantially since the end of 2006, and the outing of the Republican Majority from Congress. The $7 billion is the lowest amount of pork spending since the $6.6 billion back in 1993, and down from an all-time high of $29 Billion in 2006. In fact from 2001-2006 over $140 Billion was spend on pork, so $7 Billion this year really isn't all that bad and is certainly a step in the right direction...don't ya think.
Senator Dick Durbin, (D-ILL) Majority Whip just spoke on the floor of the Senate about the arguments the Republicans are doing about "earmarks" in the Omnibus Spending Bill and spoke of Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show, countering Santelli's famous 'Rants' in the context of pure 'truthness' that only Jon Stewart could do to show the craziness of the Republicans outrage. Senator Durbin gave a big shout out to Jon Stewart, and it was "great".
Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. Stewart could report on the news coverage of "lies" about earmarks too? Three "great" Cable Journalists in today's times: 1) Keith Olbermann, 2) Rachel Maddow, and 3) Jon Stewart.
To a Republican, "pork" is anything that helps someone who isn't rich.
His promise was to go "line by line" and reject any wasteful spending, yet signed a bill that has 8000 earmarks in it, one which no one who voted for it actually read it. I'd say that's breaking the promise right out of the gate. You peope really have a totally revisionist view of what was said, what is being done, and amaze me at how you can reconcile this by having a high Blood-kool-aid Level.
Maybe the right misread it and thought it said providing for the general warfare?
You mean to say they have actually read the Constitution sure does not look like they have.
someone who reads what i write....very nice. ive used that argument in the health care reform arena.
Health care, Social Security, Unemployment, Education, and many more areas can be included in this arguement and that not only kills the GOP but will hur the Libertatian cause as well.
Get out of here with your Communistic Socialist ideals!
This is America pal... We are... Rugged Individuals.... and Exceptional to the point of excluding those that are not quite the..... same.... as... us...
We don't need no stinking socialism... like guaranteed clean water (A little mercury never hurt nobody), food (Here... have a peanut encrusted hamburger), safety (Hmm.... a door emblem for the FD... sure. Hun... pass me a nail), education ($60,000 and an AAS later... woo hoo... McD's... here I come!)... I's getz all I ned frum thes hair bible!
Speaking of plane crashes, The Onion cartoonist seems to be the only one not buying the MSM's cover-up of The Miracle on The Hudson®
what a terribly old joke
LOL
That was funny!
I agree with the no panties lady. :-)
Funny but it makes my point for me.
Re; peanut safety
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/surprise-peanut-plants-private-food-i
Awww, the free market.
This is the third lap-top I have destroyed by spitting my coffee on it. The only useful suggestion I can give to everybody is to go to Comedy Central and watch Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. It is THERE that you can get some relief from these fools.
Funny thing is there news tends to have more facts than the so called ligtamate news does.
Sorry it should be their news not there news.
Well, Obama did cut off on CitiBank purchasing that private jet, and they backed off, and they had our bailout money. That's a good start.
I meant "Obama did call out CitiBank on purchasing that private jet"
General welfare. I need a new set of sunglasses, I have sun in my eyes and my eyes are watering...Who should I call, Obama? Moochers.
You're most likely just staring at the sun. Why don't you contact this organization?
and what would you consider the general welfare to entail?
you can't honestly believe that to promote the general welfare means to take money from one person and give it to another? what it means is to protect the people from such things that inhibit their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. promote or advance the general welfare for all people, to remove barriers or roadblocks that allow people opportunity to pursue their dreams.
take money from one person and give it to another?
For the past 8 years wealth has traveled from the poor/middle class to the rich. Now it's finally starting to turn around and all the wall streeters and apologists for the rich (MSM and jamesb) are throwing a hissy fit.
Too bad. It's happening, it's going to improve the "general welfare" and there's nothing you can do about it (except whine).
jimmy, your dancing dangerously close to the line where i will add you to my schooling. never once did i say or imply that the general will means to take money from one person and give to another.
and by the way, excellent repeat of Emperor Rush's confusion of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
and your interpretation could be seen as a valid one. im not saying it isnt. there are many ways to interpret the preamble and what it means.
i was simply asking what liebuster himself interprets what promote the general will means to him. not you but him. but since you have now opened that door, im going to give you my answer.
personally, i feel the promotion of the general will is thus:
follow the collective voice of what ourselves, as citizens wants from our government.
provide us with the means to accomplish what we choose to do with our life in whatever form that takes if we choose to take them.
and finally the freedom to choose. which ties in with my 2nd sentence point.
let me ask you this james.....is the general will promoted in this country if there were no primary and secondary and university educational systems available?
would the general will be promoted if there was no such thing as medical insurance and care?
how would the general will be promoted if government didn't have a military to protect us.
why stop there. doesn't the general welfare mean that everybody have a house, or at least an apartment? and a job? how about a certain amount of money in the bank? all those promote the general welfare if I accept your definition.
Everyone has their own understanding of what "the general welfare" means. It doesn't matter though because the Congress defines it.
so now you have gone and done it, you have crossed the line
time to be Schooled. class in session.
ok jimmy. taken to the furthest of extremes sure you could be right.......had i said any of that.
if you had read what i said. i said what i believe the general welfare means. i didn't say it could mean this also, or maybe down the line this as well....
i specifically laid out three points of which i think the general will means. if you want to pull my words out of context be my guess. but that just proves you nothing but an extremist.
my interpreation and subsequent questions to you....which by the way you havent answered in any substative form.......
is that the government provides the basic means to acquire those things you asked, such as a house, a job, apartment and money.
and what i mean by that is to give a k-12 education, beyond that it is entirely ones choice to either get a job to make money and acquire what they want, if possible. or continue onto higher education and then later get a job or any of those things you listed.
SCHOOLED. class dismissed
JamesB, I thnk if you look at JBomb's examples, these are opportunities that can be provided, or things that can be done more efficiently, in a nation our size, on a bigger scale. You're stuck on seeing gifts or handouts.That's not what this is about.
"never once did i say or imply that the general will means to take money from one person and give to another"
once again it's the old bait and switch from liberals, always trying to hide their agenda and what they really want. Try and find a more acceptable way to phrase it so it sounds better, less invasive - as I said before, never say raise taxes, say invest, and on and on. Truth detector - that is exactly what welfare is, like it or not, you take money from one person and give it to another. you can dress it up with all sorts of deceptive language, but it is what it is. At least have the honesty to say so.
guess what james, im a conservative republican. just not the kind that is around these days. im more in line with barry goldwater, and TR. not ronald reagan and w.
your lying. again.
never did i say once. that taxes should be raised. or try to warp words, as you have obviously done.
cry foul all you like. but your a liar, pure and simple.
if you read any of my posts above i spell out in precise language what i believe the general will to be. but you wont accept that argument, fine don't. if you do or do not i don't care. but don't you dare call me a liar, when you yourself have twisted my own words to fit your ideas.
No Democrat has a problem saying that we're going to raise taxes on the wealthy (Obama says it all the time). We're going to use the money to invest in society as a whole.
You spelled that wrong.. and empty consuming cavity is called a HOLE not a whole...
At least have the honesty to say so.
OK - us non-rich people finally had enough of government coddling up to the rich and look what we did - voted in Obama and turned the house and senate democratic.
Your hatred of the poor makes you sound more and more like Tommy.
you know what real hatred of the poor is? Liberal social policies that keep poor people dependent on government services while making them think that they can't make it without liberal Democratic politicians in power, whose only interest in the poor is making sure they retain their votes, and keep them in power. That is not only the height of disrespect, patronization, and condescension, but the underlying deception of many liberals and their social welfare programs. You can say I hate the poor and you know nothing, except that I believe it is does very little for someone's self worth and self respect to be given a handout, but rather far more beneficial to them for government to remove barriers and create opportunity which allows them to build character, realize they can make it on their own, and develop far more self respect than any liberal giveaway ever could. But you can't understand that so you call people who disagree with your social welfare as hating the poor. Try it somewhere else, it doesn't work with me.
Sure, the Dem's support of social program is only to gain favor with voters, not like they're actually trying to HELP anyone put a roof over their head or keep them fed. You may not "hate the poor", but you hate the liberals of helping the poor with your false premise that people enjoy taking help from the government.
what it means is to protect the people from such things that inhibit their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. promote or advance the general welfare for all people, to remove barriers or roadblocks that allow people opportunity to pursue their dreams. - jamesB
Like removing the financial barriers and roadblocks we're experiencing during this crappy recession, right?
Glad you agree. Have a nice weekend. :)
Well, looking back at the time this was written, men came to arms to defend you. You were cool when folks with shields, or swords by the thousands show up at our border. Simple as that.
When Obama submits his own budget suggestions this summer, then we will examine if he's living up to his commitments.
There's no "might" about it - this is Bushs budget. This is a continuing resolution from last fall.
AS the President he holds the power. He can take action on the earmark issue. Just as he went up the Hill to talk about his bailout bill and negotiated things in and out in order to get it to pass he could and should be doing the same thing right now on nay bill that earmarks funds for pet projects. He could if he wanted to and the lack of action speaks louder than the rhetoric herein.
The earmarks account for 1.9% of the total bill. I believe he has bigger fish to fry (eg, saving our ecomony) than keeping a campaign promise he never made.
!. If it is only 1.9% just order it all taken out. That is very easy to do and he could do it.
2. SO how much money are we talking about at 1.9%? More than chicken feed I suspect.
Take what out? What do you know about these earmarks? My guess is nothing because the only thing the media tells you is "9000", "earmarks", "pork".
BWT, the 1.9% is ~8 billion. And how much is waste? Out dear leaders in the media never really say now do they.
To put the cost of these earmarks in perspective, we spend 12 billion a month in iraq.
Congress is a separate branch of gov't. He can't tell them what to do and what not to do. He can give suggestions and they may or may not take it into account.
you are very correct - note that in a more lengthy reply I mentioned that he could take a trip to the hill as he did for the stimulus bill, sit with the legislators and tell them what he wants......there have been no visible signs of effort to do anything along the lines of his campaign promises.
The Democrats in Congress and the president were on the same page with the stimulus. That's not always going to happen nor should it.
Can you show any of us where Obama made the campaign promise of no earmarks? Any sources? Any quotes from 'da man' himself? You keep repeating it like a parrot on crack, but I've not seen any actual proof.
I watched damned near everything Obama did and said. I don't remember any promise about no earmarks.
that whole liberal "don't worry, it's not that much money" argument falls flat as a pancake when it comes to defending entitlements, which is our budgets biggest busters. what say you to people who want those addressed?
Yeah you are right. He should go through the 9000 earmarks and decide which ones are wasteful and which are not. He can call all the scientists etc and interview them and analyze which ones to chop.
Or are you saying just cut them all because they all have that dirty little word attached to them.... don't let me scare you here.. earmarks.
jamesb and worldly can't get it through their skulls that Obama doesn't formulate the budget - he just signs it. And by unilaterally saying he won't sign a bill with earmarks would be going against the combined political force of every single solitary representative and senator, both republican and democrat. As you said earlier, he's got bigger fish to fry.
535 legislators wrote them then the 535 legislators can act on the President's request and clean them up. Face it your man has done a u-turn on his promise - even if his promise is as MMFA says it is.
So if he promised to reform earmarks (not eliminate them) how would he go about getting this reforming done. Would he just say screw you congress I'm axing all of your earmarks. Or perhaps he would need a slighty more intelligent and reasonable way of doing this, something that might take more than a few weeks to accomplish.
And I'm still waiting on your big analysis as to which of the 9000 items are wasteful and why?
Easy to say. he rescinded a lot of Bush's policies on day one (or nearly so), but only when they fit the leftist agenda. Embryonic stem cell ban-gone. Corece doctors and nurses to perfrom abortions or get sanctions- now in play. this is BS frankly and you will all still be blaming Bush when the next election turns it around after the country is driven into the ground from 4 years of democratic excesses. Gawd I hope Newt runs in 2012 if the country survives that long.
I hope so too.
INteresting....even though it is early days, and it might be Bush's budget,
It's NOT might, IT'S LAST YEAR'S BUDGET PROPOSED BY BUSH!
His Holiness has been able to exert his policies from day one on other items so why not on earmarks?
When President Obama submits his FIRST budget, then you can judge him.
Even if the press are wrong, and MMFA is right, why not then discuss whether or not BO is living uop to what he DID promise?
Your insane idea that you can judge the success or failure of the Obama administration based on LESS than 100 days is just that, insane.
You don't really want an honest discussion, because honesty would require you to wait until Obama has been in office longer before offering ANY evaluation.
You can't do that, after all, what would you do with your juvenile "His Holiness" crap?
Pearlene - excellent post, as usual.
I'd like to add that I find it quite amusing that the right-wing trogs want to judge Obama on his success/failure before the end of 100 days, but what's even more amusing is that they will harp on one thing that they claim was a campaign promise (which never was) to prove that Obama is a failure.
Of course, the righties will never admit that Obama has kept his other promises (so far), such as those mentioned above (stimulus package, closing Gitmo, getting us the hell out of Iraq, just to name a few).
So, it's ONE made-up broken promise versus several promises fulfilled. That's CON logic for ya!
Commonsenseliberal, right-wingers all want to claim that Obama has failed at something, yet they were the FIRST ones to claim that 9/11 wasn't Bush, it was Bill Clinton's fault.
Of course, Clinton is responsible for the country 9 MONTHS AFTER he left office, but Obama is responsible and it hasn't been 100 days.
I find their posting have ZERO substance, just a lot of whinning from a 2 year old having a temper tantrum.
And remember, they won't judge Bush until years and years down the road. For me the verdict was in long ago.
Earmarks are part of the stimulus that this country needs to get out of this down economy.
That must be the Cherry Kool-Aid hangover talking.
Do you not have a rebuttal, or are you being a jacka$$ because it comes naturally to you?
Taking MMFA at face value BO promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending. I have seen nothing that says he is living up to what he said - even though he easily could be doing something right now. Little people DONATE when they give their $10 to a campaign but the big players INVEST when they provide their $25,000 and expect to be 'paid back' several multiples of that amount in pet projects sent their way.
I predict BO will do nothing to rein in the corrupting practices of his fellow politicians and he will do nothing to reform the legal system which by many pundits accounts for 45% of everything we buy (because of the fear and reality of overly excessive punitive awarrds that mainly end up inthe pockets of the lawyers).
...and he will do nothing to reform the legal system which by many pundits accounts for 45% of everything we buy (because of the fear and reality of overly excessive punitive awarrds that mainly end up inthe pockets of the lawyers). worldly
What utter nonsense.
Utter nonesense? I guess your are describing your reply. Let's start with healthcare. Have you ever checked to see what the annual liability insurance cost is for your local primary care physician? No, didn't hink so. Compared with average monthly operating costs insurance PAID by the doctors and nurses is by far the largest single line item.
Another example - we have to not only put up one way signs on freeway exit ramps but we now have to put at least two sets of very expensive do not enter signs....seems we have to protect the brain dead from themselves. Not to mention al lthe other road markeings that have come abot because some lawyer defended those brain dead individuals and won big punitive damages.
LAbor costs mor, parts cost more, assempbly costs more, distribution costs more and sales cost more because of the lack of control on jury awards.
So Ben, what would say the cost of the absence of tort reform has added to the price of goods we pay?
I'm not sure, but perhaps you could ask Mr Tort Reformer Robert Bork?
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21079
And if I accept what you say about the cost of goods, why are many goods priced about the same (or cheaper) as those sold in Canada where they don't seem to have the same tortious nature?
First, ever hear about competition and market dynamics? With Canada right next door prices tend to equalize.
Second, as the largest materialistic consuming nation in the world many goods are manufactured to US specifications so the rest of the world gets hit with our Tort costs as well. (Doesn't make sense to run parrallel manufacturing processes).
Third, when distribution and delivery is by other country standards the goods can be obtained much cheaper. Take the BMW option to pick up your new vehicle in Germany. Instead of buying a US manufactured BMW you can go to the factory and pick up one there and the price difference pays for your trip plus shipping costs and duties back to the US - or about =/- 35% of the sticker price of the US version.
As I stated - utter nonsense
We don't need tort reform. The courts can decide how much a person gets for their injury after they hear from both sides.
Loony, you make my point so briliantly. We have left it to the courts and that is how it has gotten out of control. LIk elaving healthcare to the AMA and getting out of control. If you are going to reform one ot make it better than reform the other at the same time and get dowuble the benefit.
You missed my point so brilliantly. They cap is defined by a court that hears both sides and renders a decision whether it be no money at all or one billion dollars.
Another example - we have to not only put up one way signs on freeway exit ramps but we now have to put at least two sets of very expensive do not enter signs....seems we have to protect the brain dead from themselves. - WorldlyMrR
OK, where to start with this nonsense...
First of all, how does anyone have to "put up with" the signs? Do they bother you to the point that you have to "put up with them"?
Second, have you ever thought that the signs placed on roads aren't necessarily for the people you referred to as "brain dead", but to protect those that are obeying the laws and driving in the proper direction? If you place the 'Do Not Enter' signs on the ramp letting others know that they shouldn't enter, that will keep those to whom you referred to as "brain dead" from entering the ramp and hitting people head on.
Damn you're stupid.
Can you clarify what you mean by "45% of everything we buy"? Do you mean 45% of the things we buy have a higher cost because of our legal system? Or do you mean for every dollar we spend 45 cents is attributable to our legal system?
Our goods costs 45% more than they really need to cost owing in a big part to increased costs in all aspects of the manufacturing or services delivery process as the result of the reality or fear of massive punitive awards. Push Tort reform and we all could have a lot more money, medical care would be much cheaper, government services would co9st less - and the list goes on and on.
I'm a skeptic on this one. Can you point me to a website where I can read up on this?
Medical Malpractice Costs 1975-2004, Adjusted for Inflation
Source: Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast/publications/reports/2005_Tort_Cost/2005_Tort.pdf
Way to make the case for Nationalized health care..
The higher ratio of tort costs to GDP in
the U.S. may be partly explained by differences
in health care systems. Injured
parties in countries with national health
care may have less of a need to sue to
recover the medical costs of injuries.
Differences in legal systems, including
their degree of tort law tradition, may
also explain some of the cost differences
among countries.
And I guess you just skipped over this part...
This study examines only one side of
the U.S. tort system: the costs. No
attempt has been made to measure or
quantify the benefits of the tort system.
This study makes no conclusion that
the costs of the U.S. tort system outweigh
the benefits or vice versa.
What conservatives dislike about the tort system is the "deep pockets" angle, that some rich person or rich company might have to pay for their malfeasance. This, they say, is "wealth redistribution", therefore unfair because wealthy corporations and the rich are sinless creatures who have never taken money that wasn't theirs like, for example, when the government subsidizes Big Oil or Big Pharm or Big Farm. In other words, wealth redistribution upward is good, downward is bad, so they claim.
Randy
I'm not sure I would put much faith in Towers Perrin:
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/5458.htm
And I can't find that 45% claim in the doc, can you point to the right page?
The other day when Tiny Tim spoke about going after people who did not pay their taxes he sounded like a hypocrite and most laughed at him.
uhhhh.... what?
Oh how they feign ignorance when it serves them. I believe it is a reference to the new treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, who vowed to get the tax cheats but only because he is now a reformed tax cheat.
Which Tiny Tim is she talking about?
Bob Cratchit's son or the "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" guy?
This is how the legislative process works:
The Legislative branch passes a piece of legislation. The executive branch either signs it into law or vetoes it. If the legislation is vetoed, the Congress can override it with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate.
And what would he have done had he found something? It's not like republicans plan on giving him the power of the line item veto.
keep drinkng the kool-aid..it obviously affects your ability to do math.. You all cheered when you got the majority in congress, btu here you again blame republicans as the stone wall ..oh poor Obama.. the damn repuglicans wont' let him veto anything. BLAME BUSH! yeah, that's the ticket...
Get back to us when you have a cogent thought you'd like to relay, thanks.
Randy
A great majority of this 46 million do not PAY tax. How can you say that ANY wealth transferred from the poor to the rich?? That's ludicrous. Please explain that math for me.
They do not pay INCOME taxes. If you work, you pay payroll taxes, which, if you are one of the working poor, are 7.65% of your earnings, since the SS portion doesn't phase out till you make well over $100,000. Then there are sales taxes. Where I live, in Cook County, that's 10%, only 2.5% on food, though. Then there are state taxes. Another 3%. So if you are one of the lucky few to be too poor to pay income taxes, you are still shelling out 13-20% of what you make in taxes. And if you are poor, losing ANY money to taxes is impacting, perhaps life threatening. Rich people, not so much. I know. This is class warfare. But as Warren Buffet said: if there's class warfare, it's obvious my class is the one that's winning.
Randy
Anyone who gets a paycheck pays taxes. If you are not intelligent enough to understand that, then sit back and let the adults have a conversation.
Earmarks make up 1% of the national budget. 1%. To pretend like SUDDENLY they are the reason we are in debt is silly and childish.
Did I wake up in a different universe where Obama was the one campaigning against earmarks, and not John McCain? Obama was the one emphasizing the $300 billion we waste every year on tax breaks for the rich while McCain was complaining about the $10-15 billion worth of annual earmarks, which may or may not be wasteful. That's where the reform is needed. Ensuring that ALL earmarks are for a useful purpose like building a bridge to SOMEWHERE, or fixing a road or a school or funding a cure for cancer and so on. Common sense and full disclosure should make which earmarks are which easy to identify.
Randy
Come, come now! No reasonableness. This is a political discussion board, after all.
Sorry. I will have to watch that in the future.
Randy
That's the first response that had on here that was not TOTALLY from left field and butI do disagree a bit though. Many millions do not work or pay anything in and expect quite a bit out. In the real world where 80% of us work, we pay a lot into Social Security, city or county tax and not even to mention federal taxes. If anyone should feel comfortable asking for anything back from that, it should be me. Do you get a certificate for supporting so many physically or mentally disabled, sick, lazy or ignorant folks? Do I get a spot closer to heaven in the line?
If at a sales job, you are judged by your performance. They pay you such and such dollars and expect a profit sooner than later. It's not a free ride. You dig a ditch, the guy next to you works harder keeps his spot when business slows down. In the same respect, government will soon qualify YOU for certain procedures in their health plan. If your life expectancy to life benefit/cost ratio is not acceptable to whatever level they will find through research from the plan laid out from this stimulus, you will be denied.
To sum it up, nothing in this world is FREE. I don't give a **** if the preamble of the Constitution from our misunderstood forefathers is misinterpreted as it is being now. Our forefathers would slap the faces of many of these folks with the amount of effort that they expend to do anything for their family or themselves. This is liberalized 2009.
I know for a fact that many moderate democrats are gettig nervous from mail that I receive from them asking for donations this early on before re-election. (Class is REALLY in session) you will hear and see the broken record liberal talking points here. Free healthcare that is the quality of a well paid healthcare.
This just in from the Republicans: Rome *was* built in a day.