Obama signs $410billion bill in PRIVATE
 

So this is any better than Bush? This administration is the height of hypocrisy. What a joke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/...spending/print

you are such a fucking idiot

you are such a fake nick... pussy

How many more threads Splum?

suck cocks troll

U.S.A. is fucked.

So he signed it without a press presence. Who cares? The congress passed the measure and sent it to him for signing. He signed it.

Why is this hypocrisy? Do you know what that word means?

Everyone can make fun of Splum... but isn't this relevant? Didn't this guy get elected for his promises about "Change" about vetoing any bill with ear marks, about transparency and so on?

isn't it hypocritical to run on a platform of a new era of openness and transparency and then not be open and transparent?

Sure is. I'd have to say he just made a critical error.

Yep. But who cares. He is the savior.

I won't judge him too harshly on this bill for two reasons.
1. they say it is a holdover from Bush and they need to sign it to keep the government running. Fighting all the earmarks would be a fruitless battle. They make up 1% of the bill and it could take weeks if not months to get them out. He said today that this was the last of the holdover stuff and from here on out there will much more transparency in how they do things. We will have to wait and see if he means that or if he is just saying that.

2. As he says many of the republicans who are criticizing him for signing a bill filled with pork and earmarks have their own pork and earmarks in the bill and now that it is signed they will run home to their states and tout these programs and the money they got for them. So it is kind of hypocritical on that front.

From here on, now that all of the old business is taken care of we will see if he really means to be transparent and do things in the public eye like he says or if he is just talking a good game and hoping people won't check up on him.

it was discussed before signing it wasn't it? what has the actual physical act of signing got to do with openness and transparency?

yes it was created over 6 months ago.

however, these "earmarks" also include projects that have been funded already through the "stimulus plan"

so not only is he doing something he said he wouldn't do... but many of these things are being funded twice.

1) republicans criticizing him for signing a bill with ear marks has zero relevance to the fact that HE said time and time again that he would VETO any bill with ear marks.

That was part of the "change" he was being elected to make happen

2) republicans are also assholes and the problem is the system as a whole is fucked where if you don't grab the money... someone else will

3) Only 1% ? "Only" really? what is the number? it's something like almost $8,000,000,000.00?

you mean that right now... today... that EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS has no other practical use?

That's an astounding thought.

there is a lot of true colours being shown.. interesting view on this

They don't want to hear it man, most people are all loyal to their "party." Obviously most people in the porn industry are "liberal democrats," whatever that really means, so they are going to defend Obama and this administration no matter what. The Bush administration was fucking everything up and now the Obama administration is fucking everything up, same shit, no change.

Transparency my ass, the Federal Reserve is still doing whatever the fuck it wants and won't give any information to congress, they are basically operating in secret.

Ron Paul has introduced a new bill to audit the Federal Reserve, but how much do you want to bet that it will go unnoticed by all the pieces of shit in congress?

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jos...-audit-the-fed

I will admit that I didn't know there were things being funded twice. If that is the case then those things should have been removed from this bill before signing it.

1. My point was that both parties are being hypocrites here and I saw nobody bashing the republicans. They have tons of earmarks in that bill, yet they are bashing Obama for signing the bill. As I said before this wasn't his bill so his not following through on vetoing it is not that big of a deal to me. It is kind of like if you get hired to do a job and when you start the job you realize that the person who previously had the job fucked a lot of stuff up. You can either fight hard to try to fix those problems or just admit that the damage is done and your energy is best spent stopping this from happening in the future. I'm not forgiving him. He did say he would veto any bill with earmarks, but I kind of give him a pass on this one since it was not his bill and started under the previous administrations watch.

2. I agree the republicans and democrats are equal assholes and it is sad that the system is built in a way where senators and congressmen are forced to grab and compete for money and if they don't get it someone else will. It is fucked up and there has to be a better way of doing this. There needs be a clear cut way where we can tell what is pet "pork" earmark and what is a legit request for money to fund a program/project.

3. There are probably many different ways that money could be better spent. It is a huge number. I was trying to put it into perspective. People are talking like the spending bill is 90% pork earmarks when that is just not the case. And out of those earmarks how many are legit requests for good programs/projects and how many are just junk and efforts to bring more money to a state? It is an enormous amount and the money could probably be put to better use, but it isn't like the entire bill is made up of these earmarks.

But Ron Paul has requested 22 different earmarks totally over 96.1 million last year.

According to the wall street journal he requested 65 earmarks totaling over 400 million in 2007. Those earmarks covered such vital things as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1186... and_outlooks


Wait a minute. Paul was supposed to be a new voice. He is the only one that is fiscally conservative and doesn't play the stupid game the pork barrel spending. . . ah. . . er. . well maybe he does after all.

Nobody is perfect, especially in politics, but Paul is right on about the Federal Reserve. Due to the people Obama has placed around him it is obvious that they will not get rid of the Federal Reserve (something that most people don't even understand why it needs to be done in the first place), but with all this new so-called "change" and "transparency" the LEAST they could do is at least make the FED open up it's books... that would be a start...

I agree the FED either has to go or be radically changed.

If thats his big critical error i will take it, compared to critical errors like invading iraq, deregulating wall street, fucking over Americans with shit policies, ect.
Fuck ya for signing an open document in private. LOL

how was invading iraq a mistake? we got saddam and took him out...


sounds to me like job well done

what good did that do for the US, the world or the Iraqi people?

Is it any better in Iraq now?

:warning

do you mean "better" for the political party/ethnic group who was responsible for the rape, torture and genocide... or the ones who were excluded from politics and were raped, tortured and murdered?

And exactly what have we gotten in return for it?

Are we safer? No. Saddam was never going to attack us and now we know he never had WMDs or any kind of reasonable military.

Do we have access to all the oil that is there? No. Supposedly this oil was going to pay for the reconstruction of the country, but last I checked we are playing for the reconstruction of the country.

Did we eliminate terrorism? No. Sure we killed some terrorists that came into the country to fight us, but I think for every 1 we killed our invasion and occupation of that country created 10.

So we are out trillions. We have lost around 6,000 soldiers with many more than that permanently disabled. The estimates are that between 100K and 300K civilians in Iraq have been killed. Sure we got Saddam, but was it really worth it and what have we gained from it?

How was invading Iraq a mistake?

Jesus Christ... a reply to that question would take like 48 pages...

have you seen the faces of how happy they were?

You're such a tard. First of all this bill was to keep the government running through fiscal 09 which started in Oct 2008. Who was president then? bush. So ths is on Bush.

And for people that think it's pork that make the budget so big it's less than 1% of the budget. Military, vet beefits, mediciad, medicare, social security interest on the debt is the VAST majority of the federal budget.

Using that logic we should invade half the countries on Earth. Saddam was a nothing. He wasn't a threat. By th way how much are my taxes going to increase because tens of thousands of formally healthy young people are dead or wounded and can't work and have to be on government help the rest of thier lives because of this war?

How is him signing it in private not being open and transparent... Is there anything hidden in there? Was the fact that he signed it kept secret?

AMEN
for how long is obama in charge now? less than two months, not?

Hmm, so since Obama has only been in office for two months that means no one is allowed to discuss the government? I guess we all better be good little citizens and keep our mouths shut, it's not good to question the all-mighty messiah.

You guys do know that Rome did the same thing back in the day right? They brought in some blatantly idiotic fool to purposefully fuck things up, then brought in what the people thought was their "savior" and basically did whatever the fuck they wanted because the people supported anything the "savior" did. I forget the exact names now but obviously you can look it up if you want.

lol... asak the family of the 4000 soldiers if they think " it was a job " worthy of their lives....

Go shine your guns, listen to police calls ...

I'd like to see this quoted in a news story from the election. McCain made the "I'll make them famous" statement all the time, but I don't recall Obama being all that aggressive against earmarks. I certainly don't remember him ever saying he would put an end to them.

But if these quotes do exist, the Republicans of GFY should have no problem finding them.

The average Iraqi is worse off now than they were under Saddam.

To paraphrase an Iraqi interviewed a few months back on TV, "Freedom is nice, but what good is it when you haven't had water or electricity for five years?"

And to come to the conclusion that they are happy based on how they act in front of the camera, you could put a camera in the most ghetto part of the US and the kids will act happy just because they get to be on camera. In Iraq there is also the effect gifts are having on the kids (candy, soccer balls, etc...). In places where soldiers don't give them anything, the kids throw rocks at them.

McCain said that he would point everyone out that had ear marks in a bill and make THEM famous... not Obama. I don't know the details, but there is a way they add ear marks to a bill anonymously... i believe this is what he was talking about specifically.

Obama said time and time again that he would not sign any bill with ear marks. This was a big part of the campaign, the babble about government waste, deficit spending etc.... and he didn't add any earmarks to any bills last year because of this very reason.

because there is typically a ceremony, people invited and questions from the media. that's how bills are signed by the president.

for example, the first bill he signed was the Ledbetter Act, in the White House .....

"The president picked the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for the first piece of legislation to sign as president.

He appeared before a packed East Room audience for a ceremony, and Ledbetter stood at his side.

His entrance in the room was met with hearty cheers from the many labor and women's groups represented there. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first woman speaker in the history of Congress, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were present. Clinton went further than any woman previously in her campaign for the presidency, although she ultimately lost the Democratic Party competition to Obama."


that's how its done. its not done in secret and away from the media and other supporters of the bill

anything the man does in office will be under a microscope. wonder how many nights he regrets running for office during these times

here is a statement he made about it

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/000974/

goodluck to USA!

Here is the complete statement
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/29636242

Interesting. We'll see what will happen next.

GEEZUS GUY,,isn't there a better way to get your Post whore count up..your Negative Obama threads are getting boring, which will make your sig views go down, spice shit up a bit

Having a ceremony doesn't make one bit of difference as to whether or not there's transparency and openness.. Your arguments are typically better than this one.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...e=pet-projects

Fast forward to about 4:50. Therein lies the issue.

the point was that bills aren't signed in private. its unusual by any comparison. end of story. had i anticipated a few rounds of playful semantics - i would have phrased it differently.

:winkwink:

My threads get more views than your site. :thumbsup