Obama stated over and over again as a campaign promise he would veto any spending bill containing earmarks and name names.

Tomorrow, the White House says he will sign the 2009 spending bill containing a reported 9000 earmarks.

Never mind pointing out that 40% of the earmarks are inserted by Republicans. An earmark is an earmark and he promised they would not get past his veto pen.

I wonder if the loud mouth liberals on this forum will be shouting LIAR OBAMA like they do with Bush? We shall see.

Spin away hypocrites!

Deane there is no need for us to spin anything, your spin job tops us all.

How so Chris?

Deane_johnson: Obama stated over and over again as a campaign promise he would veto any spending bill containing earmarks and name names.

Over and over, eh? How about naming just one time Obama said he would veto any bill that had any earmarks in it? Just one specific example?

On what date did he say it, and what was the exact quote, in context?

More distortion from Deane.

#1. The actual Obama quote: "We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Read it Deane. It is not "promise he would veto any spending bill containing earmarks and name names."

I know doing real math is counter to your argument, but 8 billion dollars of earmarks in a $410 billion budget works out to less than 2% of the total. Not only that, but 50% came from 40 Republicans. I know, keeping numbers straight only attracts you when it's your income statement.

You can't keep throwing distorted facts out and expect anyone here to believe you. If anyone around here has a loud mouth with nothing of value coming out of it, it is YOU.

So to answer your question Deane; No.

So, are you suggesting he has gone through this bill line by line and decided each of the 9000 earmarks is money spent wisely? Or, is he a liar? Your call, which is it?

The former.

But I still would not classify Obama as the biggest liar of the year. Would you?

"But I still would not classify Obama as the biggest liar of the year. Would you?"

Who would be?

Deane, you said above,:

Obama stated over and over again as a campaign promise he would veto any spending bill containing earmarks

I repeat: ON WHAT DATE DID OBAMA SAY THIS? If he said it "over and over again," then it should be very easy for you to find just one example - I'd think Fox News would have it all over home page. Give us just one quote and time/date, or admit you are the real liar and shut up.

Deane: Who would be?

I'll give you a hint: he started this thread.

Considering the mess the GOP/Cons/Neocons created with their term(s), a a budget 98% free of earmarks appears pretty sound to me. What is it about you right wing loonies? Moaning and groaning about insignificance when the bigger picture is what really counts. The whole factory is on fire, and Deanne and the GOP are all worried about one of the water closets.

Just what is your beef? Oh, I know. Poor Deanie weanie is going to have to pay the same amount of taxes he used to before Bush totally screwed up the tax tables to benefit the already wealthy.
No sympathy.

I'd think Fox News would have it all over home page.

Its slogan, actually.

"...9000 earmarks is money spent wisely."

The money has yet to be spent. Once it's spent, we'll see which earmarks were good investments and which ones were not. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see. But to be perfectly honest, I'm looking forward to Congress and the President spending money in the United States, on the United States. After years of borrowing and nothing to show for it, it's time we begin reinvesting in this country (and in a tangible way).

As for President Obama the biggest liar of the year? That's a laugh. Perhaps you should read the 25 page criminal filing on Bernard Madoff released today. I would nominate Madoff liar of the year.

As usual, Deane depends upon right wing cranks for his information.

Like O'Reilly, Hannity misrepresented Obama remark to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

*PLONK!*

(been a while!)

I'll give it some thought Deane if it is that important to you.

Or I could just say Obama is the biggest liar of the year and be done with it. I don't feel that way right now. But you've worked so hard to convince me and I think you just want someone to admit something...anything. It doesn't bother me to lie to you about this if it'll make you feel better.

You act as though he's not even trying to do anything good, Deane. So loaded for bear, you are. Frankly, if you weren't so over the top about things like this, you may even have an effective argument. But you always go for the grandiose, I cannot wait to create doubt style that it's always me that has to try and find some common ground. It's never you.

We learned that about each other a long time ago and I keep thinking that you'll show some grace or patience or something positive. I'm not talking about others. I'm talking about you and me. That's it.

So tell me, what is it that you want? I can give it to you. Name it. What will make you happy?

To add to the cold hard facts, here are the top three Senators by solo earmarks:

1. Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.) $123 million
2. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) $114 million
3. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) $86 million

Total individual Democratic earmarks: $677 million
Total individual Republican earmarks: $669 million

If you break those figures down, the GOP is spending far more per Senator than the Democrats.

Of the top 20 states slated to receive earmarks in the Omnibus spending bill, only 6 voted for the Democratic ticket last November. The state getting the most money is Mississippi. Sen. Thad Cochran (R) worked with his colleagues to secure $470 million from 204 different earmarks. Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is affiliated with efforts to bring $390 million to the state. Yes, two Republican Senators routed this gravy train right into the heart of Dixie.

Does Mississippi really need any earmarks? Is helping the painfully slow recovery from Hurricane Katrina important? Is addressing centuries of grinding poverty a priority? Is helping a largely uneducated population gain skills a good idea? Would modern infrastructure in rural areas help all of us in the future? Deane, these are folks from your party. What do you think motivates them to talk a whole load of bullpucky about the bill and then grab a big wad of cash for their constituents?

To review, two out of the top three Senators with earmarks are Republicans. The number one earmark state, six out of the top ten earmark states and fourteen out of the top twenty earmark states voted for McCain in November. If you do not believe me, look at the record for yourself. Are these Republican Senators truly concerned about the citizens they represent or just cynically funneling these dollars to their pork barrel cronies?

Are there any Republicans around here who are willing to address the "fact gap" between the bitter partisan rhetoric that surrounds this budget and the disproportionate share of billions in new spending that is going to the so-called "red" states? Anyone?

DA!
If he lies this one time will that make up for ALL the GD lies that DUHbya and Co. manufactured in 8 years? HUH?
NO Fin WAY!

NEXT!

Wow. Totally and completely schooled.

Deane, you just got your ass whipped by a bunch of goddamn nerds.

I knew I wouldn't have to answer Deane's question. I knew I could count on the brotha hood to come through.

I agree with Vit, Deane you opened this Pandora's box, I'd advise you close it and go clean your driveway.

So, I guess you guys think that sending millions to Iowa as an earmark to study why pig shit smells so bad is money wisely spent? Why is that not surprising.

I do think it is cheaper just to send that God-awful pig shit to Nebraska and dump it there.

Republicans have nothing to say about it, given their transgressions over the course of the Bush Presidency.

I could understand this kind of criticism from a party that has it's nose clean, but that's not the case! Republicans were absolutely horrible. Never before seen levels of waste, and here they are now trying to be the "responsible" party!

It's a joke Deane! Makes you look like a buffoon!

Frankly, it's not even wise to recognize the merit of your claim. There is no end game that makes sense!

So what? We say, "Hey Deane is right on!" What then? So we hammer on Obama for minor league stuff, build a distraction so we get what exactly?

Nothing would get done!

We need stuff to get done.

Republicans have made it clear they stand for not getting stuff done.

So then it's over. We won. It's that simple.

Deal or kneel.

"I could understand this kind of criticism from a party that has it's nose clean, but that's not the case! Republicans were absolutely horrible. Never before seen levels of waste, and here they are now trying to be the "responsible" party!"

And this makes it OK, right?


"We need stuff to get done."

No, we need to get the right stuff done. A trillion dollars in and we have nothing workable to show for it except all the pet liberal projects, like saving the home of a mouse in San Fransisco.

And we are!

A coupla percent is nothing. Never is, never will be.

Frankly, I'm perfectly ok with a coupla percent. That's the cost of politics. I don't see a scenario where government actually works without some amount of this kind of thing going on. I seem to recall you lecturing me on "how the world really works!". Look in the mirror man! It's all right there.

Do I need to go pull your posts, sort them, and just make a bigger mess of this than we already have?

There is a point of diminishing returns where the tedium and gridlock limits the value potential of the legislation.

A few percent is beyond that point of diminishing returns.

And the problem with "right" stuff done is a matter of who won the election. I want the new deal investment stuff. I want a lot more finanical regulation, I want a looser science and social policy, I want single pay health care, I want the big investment houses that fucked us to lose; "too big to fail" institution publically owned; broken up; re-managed; then sold back to private interests to pay back the debt those asses made for us; and I don't want gridlock about it happening.

Given I voted for the winning team, and said team has majority support, that's the end of what "right" means, now isn't it?

Basically, this has the status of a wedge issue. Works the same way Deane. If you want to pull a "nothing else matters" position on this, you will be just as marginalized as the others were on flag burning, gays, guns, god, greed (now!), and a whole host of other wedge bullshit that hobbles what is otherwise long overdue progress.

Like I said, deal or kneel.

It's time to let the President do what he said he was going to do. That is how it works.

I have no time for those wanting to hobble things just for the fact that their party lost, or that poor results might be politically profitable.

To clarify "Deal or Kneel".

This President has made it extremely clear that he wants all solid ideas on the table for consideration.

That's the deal part. Have constructive ways to get the agenda done? Post it up. change.gov is there for you, and it's damn cool.

The alternative is simply bowing down to that fraction of us that serves it's own selves. You know 23 percenters, Limbaugh listeners, wackos? Yeah, those guys.

If you are gonna go down that road, they own you.

And that's the kneel part.

We won the election. Progress is gonna happen. There are good, conservative ways to approach elements of it, but the agenda isn't under discussion.

....flag burning, gays, guns, god, greed...

Those religious, greedy, gun toting, flag burning gays are the ones that scare me the most!

Deane_johnson wrote: Obama stated over and over again as a campaign promise he would veto any spending bill containing earmarks

I repeat: ON WHAT DATE DID OBAMA SAY THIS? If he said it "over and over again," then it should be very easy for you to find just one example. Give us just one quote and time/date, or admit you are the real liar and shut up.

Wasn't it John McCain who said that?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903050009?f=s_search

Passing this legislation is not a pledge violation of any kind. That leaves the merits of it, and those merits are solid enough to not be a worry at this time.

"A trillion dollars in and we have nothing workable to show for it except all the pet liberal projects"

Lie. Another Deane whopper. Keeping police and fire jobs/hires is not a pet liberal project.
Neither is the Bonneville Power Administration whom can go ahead with their $246-million, 870-MW McNary-John Day project after the bill's funds removed a "major uncertainty" about its future.

When completed in 2012, the project will enable the transmission of 700 MW of wind power within the 870 MW of new capacity created and it will create 700 jobs when construction begins this spring. The transmission lines will run from Umatilla, Oregon, parallel with the Columbia River all the way to the John Day substation.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2582/

There hasn't been enough time to truly evaluate the efficacy of the stimulus, and anyone with a sound mind realizes that. The Republican doofi just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that standing around and bemoaning everything the new administration is doing as wrong isn't buying them any votes. The American public supports the new plan overwhelmingly and even the Conservative pundits are lambasting the GOP leaders for being a bunch of idiots.

Deane-

Just a simple clarification here:
You can't have a spending bill without earmarks. That's what they spend on.
"Earmarks" are not the same thing as "pork".
Not all Earmarks are "waste" or "bad".

So the statement you claim Obama made which he didn't would have been absurd anyway.

Just like this thread.

Buh bye now.

Warner, any thread criticizing the actions of The Chosen One is considered absurd by the left.

Deane, you've unanswered questions on the table.

"The Chosen One"

That's correct.
He was "chosen" on Nov. 4, 2008.

Should we call a Wahmbulance?

What was absurd was your initial post Deane. Further taking the GOP into obscurity with your absurdity.

C'mon, Deane is a Republican, and they can't win an argument using facts. They must make things up to attack their political opponents. Deane is just reminding us of that.

Well, Wednesday is almost over and it appears that the biggest lying politician of the day is Judd Gregg (R), N.H.

"Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (or one of his staffers) writes:

The growth in tax revenues from 2002 through 2007 were some of the largest in history. The tax system became much more progressive, with the top 20% of income earners paying 85% of the taxes -- a rate much higher than during the Clinton years -- all while keeping capital-gains rates low.

I'll blame the WSJ opinion editors for the verb-subject disagreement in the first sentence. But I'm assuming the facts came from Gregg. Except they're not quite facts—and since this sort of tax disinformation is pretty common, I couldn't resist wasting an hour digging up the data to refute them.

Non-fact No. 1: The tax revenue gains from 2002 through 2007 weren't "some of the largest in history," unless you define "some" extremely broadly. Adjusted for inflation, U.S. government revenue rose 20% from 2002 to 2007. That ranks 24th among the 58 rolling five-year periods between the end of World War II and 2007. Just barely above average.... Over the full eight years of the Bush administration, it appears likely that federal revenue growth will be just about zero. Over the eight Clinton years it was 58%.

Non-fact No. 2: The percentage of federal taxes paid by the top 20% of the income distribution in 2005 (the most recent year covered by the Congressional Budget Office's annual examination of tax rates and the income distribution) was 69%. The percentage of federal income taxes was 86%....

The cuts in tax rates on capital gains and dividends during the Bush years accentuated this kink, so on the whole a fair-minded observer would have to say the tax system became somewhat less progressive. Which isn't what Judd Gregg said."

Justin Fox http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/judd-greggs-dubious-tax-math/

Warner, any thread criticizing the actions of The Chosen One is considered absurd by the left.

And YOUR God DUHbya got a free pass on everything! What are you bitching about except for the sake of bitching..... WOW! Looks like LimBLAH takes over for you were DUHbya finished.

Deane, "The Chosen One" has already been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans.

It's called America. It's allowed. Encouraged in fact.

But having facts does help.

So glad you're back. No, really.

"So, I guess you guys think that sending millions to Iowa as an earmark to study why pig shit smells so bad is money wisely spent?"

Population of humans in Iowa: 2,926,324
Population of pigs in Iowa: 15,000,000
Ratio of pigs to people in Iowa: 5 to 1

Population of humans in North Carolina: 8,049,313
Population of pigs in North Carolina: 10,000,000
Ratio of pigs to people in North Carolina: 1.2 to 1

Iowa and North Carolina are the two largest producers of swine in the country. Both states have had programs in place for over a decade to mitigate not only the smell, but the health risks associated with the millions of tons of fecal matter produced each year.

The folks at Wired examined this issue six years ago, and it was revisted by Scientific American just last week. A quick Google yields hundreds of results from legitimate sources, but this subject seems to be most exciting to bloviating windbags who think that science is a hobby.

The citizens of Iowa and North Carolina take this very seriously and have every right to request funding for the programs. The only "example" to be made of this project is that it dovetails with a top down shift toward real concrete research and not just the assumptions, empty prayers and magical thinking of our recent past. If the current studies are inconclusive or a waste of time, they will not be in the next budget.

Deane, your logic reminds me of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Remember a few weeks back when he griped bitterly about funding volcanic monitoring? Well, that one program saved untold millions of people in the Philippines -- including many thousands of our own servicemen. The research continues to provide data to protect the citizens of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii where volcanoes are an everyday reality.

If one were to follow the silly narrow minded view of Jindal, nobody in this neck of the woods needs to pay for flood levees, pump houses and storm shelters in large metropolitan centers, nor do we need to finance a state of the art weather monitoring system that includes aircraft, radar and computer banks, nor do we need to tie up NOAA, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard and Corps of Engineers personnel to prevent potential flooding, study violent weather and react to emergencies, nor do we need a fully funded FEMA response to future hurricanes.

We are all Americans. Read that again out loud and savor it. We all have unique needs based on geography, population and industry. Face it Deane, if pigs weren't big money, then the government would not have to step in and find solutions. Small farmers hear from their neighbors, explore solutions and work together with the community to fix a problem. Agribusiness is at the root of this stinky issue and they have shown very little initiative. As ever, when big business shits the bed, government has to follow the smell and clean it up.

Too pig to fail.

"when big business shits the bed, government has to follow the smell and clean it up."

Sums up what Bush did and what Obama is trying to clean up.

Nice work LS. Factual and thoughtful.

It will be interesting to see what Dr. Spin does with this.

We have neglected so many different elements of our national infrastructure these past 30 years that it's going to take years to catch up. Instead, we cut taxes and lived under the myth that the market would take care of the rest. And as we know all too well, the market doesn’t always do as promised. Not only have wages stagnated these past 30 years, but again, domestic investment in projects very appropriate for the long-term and short term health of this country have been taken second fiddle to even more tax cuts and the war in Iraq. It’s a receipt for a declining standard of living. It's going to take some time getting to the place where we should be.

For Immediate Release March 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON EARMARK REFORM

Room 350
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building

11:23 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I ran for President pledging to change the way business is done in Washington and build a government that works for the people by opening it up to the people. And that means restoring responsibility and transparency and accountability to actions that the government takes. And working with the Congress over my first 50 days in office, we’ve made important progress toward that end.

Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that’s already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks — the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We’re implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website — recovery.gov — that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.

I also signed a directive that dramatically reforms our broken system of government contracting, reining in waste and abuse and inefficiency; saving the American taxpayers up to $40 billion each year in the process.

And I’ve laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we’ve inherited and pave the way for our long-term prosperity. For the first time in many years, we’ve produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.

Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year’s budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.

That’s what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does — the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven’t heard much about.

What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own — and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.

But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. So these practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade, when the number of earmarks had ballooned to more than 16,000, and played a part in a series of corruption cases.

In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. These measures were combined with the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate. We banned gifts and meals and made sure that lobbyists have to disclose who they’re raising campaign money from, and who in Congress they send it to. So we’ve made progress. But let’s face it, we have to do more.

I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it’s necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can’t have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.

In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.

These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members’ websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.

Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we’ve already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day — schools, and police stations, and fire departments.

When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there’s some confidence that there’s going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you’ve got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies — public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that’s benefitting is doing so because it’s going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they’re private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.

Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.

And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we’ll work with Congress to do so.

Now I know there are members in both Houses with good ideas on this matter. And just this morning, the House released a set of recommendations for reform that I think hold great promise. I congratulate them on that.

Now I’m calling on Congress to enact these reforms as the appropriation process moves forward this year. Neither I nor the American people will accept anything less.

It’s important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis. Along with that reform, I expect future spending bills to be debated and voted on in an orderly way, and sent to my desk without delay or obstruction, so that we don’t face another massive, last-minute omnibus bill like this one.

I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don’t quarrel with that. But leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities, and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all our parts.

The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.

If we’re going to solve our economic crisis; if we’re going to put Americans back to work; if we’re going to make the investments required to build a foundation for our future growth — then we must restore the American people’s faith that their government is working for them, and that it’s on their side. That’s the government I promised. That’s the government I intend to lead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

---------------------


Big grin over here @ CJ and Little!

Guys, I love your stuff, but don't you know that Deane only reads about 1 sentence? You're giving him too much content!

Totally.

It's good to hear others. Little really struck a chord with me, for example. And I never tire of CJ's awesome "Yeah, so? Tell me, step by step!" questions.

Besides, Deane does read. He just grumbles about it, but I've caught him referencing mid-material many times.

And then finally we've got the lurkers!

Guys, I love your stuff, but don't you know that Deane only reads about 1 sentence?

It's not just Deane Warner... It's the whole GD neo-CONer bunch! Destroying America one day at a time.

God, I've missed this place.
My heart swells with pride for the "brotha hood".

Word up baby!