Politico.com with Obama’s hypocrisy on earmarks.
Compare these relevant graphs…
“…when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (First Obama-McCain debate)
The FY’09 omnibus appropriations bill contains 8,570 known earmarks totaling $7.7 billion. That amount represents less than 2% of the $410 billion legislation. (Taxpayers for Common Sense)
Obama is set to sign the earmark laden Omnibus bill today. This president reminds me of the title of a popular Jim Carrey movie. His pants are also on fire.
It’s kind of sad that some of the best journalism on television comes from a comedy show.
Cramer made the mistake of taking exception to Stewart’s comments on CNBC and felt personally attacked, when Stewart was making it about CNBC and about financial reporting in general. Cramer actually made it personal and Stewart ran with it.
Cramer is off of CNBC within 2 months I’m predicting.
Did anyone see “The Daily Show” this week when Jon Stewart mentioned that earmarks were 2-percent of the budget…and also 2-percent is the amount of bacteria and fecal matter legally acceptable in a can of apricots?
I don’t think Obama said he was going to totally do away with earmarks, but that he wanted to see them reduced. Unfortunately, I think they’ve become seen as a sort of “necessary evil” (is any evil really necessary?) in Washington on both sides of the aisle, which is a shame. Except for when it benefits where I live, of course. 🙂
Speaking of Stewart, did anyone see his interview with Jim Cramer? I don’t care who you think is right in that–except that CNBC itself is wrong and Cramer, unfortunately, was left out by the network to be the whipping boy–that was the best TV of the week and Stewart’s anger was so palpable.
Jeff…you are sooo consistently constant…gota love ya!
None of those articles have a quote in which he says that he will do away with earmarks during the election. They all pre-suppose that this is what he said, when it was McCain who railed so hard against earmarks.
In the quote above, he’s not saying that earmarks need to be eliminated. He’s saying the screwy things we pay for need to be eliminated.
It’s a matter of straining out a gnat here. He’s looking at the budget on a macro level and wanting to find ways in the future to trim EVERYTHING in it down. Not just earmarks. Still no quote of him saying he wanted to eliminate earmarks during the election period. AND he’s now said that his next budget plan will not include earmarks at all.
“From Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s third presidential debate, Obama said::
“Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.”
Transcript of the debate is here:
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=420980&keyword=Earmarks+account+for+0.5+percent+of+the+total+federal+budget.+There\%27s+no+doubt+that+the+system+needs&phrase=&contain=”
You are proving the point that I made and Charles did early, nothing in there said he would not have them. Stop the spin man, I think you are getting dizzy.
BTW, right before the quote here is what BHO said. “Now, Sen. McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That’s one of the centerpieces of his campaign.”
Isn’t this what I said?
“Your whole purpose on this blog is to suppress any opposition to your ideology. Amazing to me how you could go from total hatred of GWB to total love for BHO.”
I don’t love BHO, however he did not hide behind my faith to get elected as most Reps do. It is a little personal with GWB I admit.
“For someone quick to criticize me, you sure have a short memory on just how patient I have been with you.” or how reactionary you can be in reading into statements before you fully understand where someone is coming from? like you did with a previous poster Stephanie? What you don’t like Paul, is my shedding light on the dark world of neo-conservatism. Not the old time conservatism of Barry Goldwater or recently Ron Paul. but the world of Dick Chaney and Karl Rove and all who associtate. One that engages is all kinds of dirty nasty politics and then uses a faith that I cherish to defend and endorse actions that are indefensible. It irritates me to no end to have conversation after conversation with well meaning people who say they follow Jesus endorse torture, illegal war, dirty political tactics, that ALL, Dems and Reps do BTW. Most of these folks get their information from 2 sources, Foxnews and “christian” talk radio. They simply echo the right wing echo chamber that starts with Rush or Drudge and goes down the pipeline. Politics by it’s nature, is corrupt, but somehow Christians seem to think the right wing is somehow virtuous, somehow God approved? I wonder where they get that idea? I have always had the position, call evil what it is and good what it is. but somehow that comes across as liberal, or even fascist. maybe the reason is because the opinions here are so far to one side that even a middle or slightly left opinion is considered librofacist. As always, I like to express my opinions, you have a right to kick me like you have in the past and you have to others who you have misunderstood as well. It is YOUR talk show and YOUR blog like you always like to say.
I fully understand what facism is, Jeff: Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement, viewing all dissenters as enemies to be destroyed.
Your whole purpose on this blog is to suppress any opposition to your ideology. Amazing to me how you could go from total hatred of GWB to total love for BHO.
From Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s third presidential debate, Obama said::
“Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.”
Transcript of the debate is here:
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=420980&keyword=Earmarks+account+for+0.5+percent+of+the+total+federal+budget.+There\%27s+no+doubt+that+the+system+needs&phrase=&contain=
Paul, you say I am a facist, do you even know what facism is? Kinda like when Bush and his folks starting calling terrorist Islamofacist, haha if you understand what facism is you know how asurd that statement is. It sounds awful though and once again you have put a label on me, something you have railed against me for doing to others that support you. Congrats.
In the Time article. “White House officials say they fully expect Congress to live up to Obama’s campaign pledge of reducing earmarks to below 1994 levels.”
I still don’t see anything where he said there would be none. He is less than 60 days into his administration. He can’t change things over night. Let’s see what he does over 4 years. Of course, you are already praying for his removal. McCain said no earmarks, Obama said reduction.
Another thing, Jeff. At least, as a pastor and private citizen, I have always owned up to my opinion – never hiding behind pseudonyms and false identities as you have.
For someone quick to criticize me, you sure have a short memory on just how patient I have been with you.
Jeff you are laughable. You are certainly not among the “too many out there” who are paying attention, except to your own interpretation of facts.
God forbid a pastor should be entitled in this country to holding an opinion that differs from yours. Let me guess, you support the crowd that would support silencing dissent in this country.
You have repeatedly made it clear that you are not a Liberal, Jeff. I finally agree with you. You are a facist. You are a bigot against pastors and people of faith.
I’m not harping, Charles, I happen to be responding! I have already cited the sources which indicate Obama has broken a campaign pledge of no earmarks in his budget bills. But since you seem to be bent on ignoring the evidence, here it is again:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/03/02/2009-03-02_president_obama_to_sign_budget_despite_e.html
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/02/obama-to-break-campaign-promise-sign-earmark-laden-spending-bil/
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881855,00.html
How much more evidence do you require?
Charles, that was kinda my point. It’s spin at it’s best. Maybe this is why folks ask if one can be a pastor and be a right wing talk radio host???? To many of us out there who pay attention, it seems almost like an oxymoron.
Paul, he made no such campaign promise. None. He said he wanted to eliminate wasteful spending and get rid of no-bid contracts. He’s never said he wanted to eliminate earmarks. Please produce that campaign quote, or stop harping on it. Because it’s simply not true.
Not true, you keep confusing McCain with Obama. Obama said what you put in the quote above. McCain was the no earmark hawk, no Obama.
Paul, after all this time you still don’t understand me.
From what I understand, this bill is different than the stimulus package, which Obama was referring to would have no earmarks. It is my understanding that the stimulus package does not have earmarks. This Onmibus bill does have them, and as I point out, many Republicans are benefiting greatly from it.
The fact that Republicans asked for earmarks in the Omnibus bill is NOT the issue, Jeff. You are playing bait and switch. YOUR MAN OBAMA made a campaign promise to rid the budget process of earmarks. He didn’t do it. What difference does it make what the source of the earmarks is?
Here is another factoid for you:
Of the top ten Senators requesting highest # of solo earmarks 5 of them are Republicans, four of whom top the list:
#1 Specter – 134 individual earmarks = $25,320,000
#2 Murkowski – 71 individual earmarks = $74,000,750
#3 Chochran – 65 individual earmarks = $75,908,475
#4 Shelby – 64 individual earmarks = $114,484,250
#8 Bond – 54 individual earmarks = $85,691,491
I’m not the least bit frustrated, Jeff. Pay attention to what your man said. He said he was going to get rid of earmarks. He said in his speech to the joint session of congress that there were, in fact, NO EARMARKS in the stimulus. He is either willfully ignorant or a liar – probably both. And you obviously don’t listen to the program very consistently or you’d certainly be hearing a lot of disagreement with my POV.
It has always been apparent to me that your agenda has been to bait me, but I continue to tolerate you.
McCain, Demint and Coborn requested 0
Clarification: 6 of the top 9 how about that, here they are with the numbers.
They are:
#2 Shelby – 64 individual earmarks total $114,484,250
#3 Bond – 54 individual earmarks total $95,691,491
#5 Cochran – 65 individual earmarks total $75,908,475
#6 Murkowski – 71 individual earmarks total $74,000,750
#8 Inhofe – 34 individual earmarks total $53,133,500
#9 McConnell – 36 individual earmarks total $51,133,500
My agenda? you are something else. Facts are facts no matter what the world you live in declares. Fact, Obama never said no earmarks that was McCain. Fact, 7 of the top 10 recipients of those dreaded earmarks are Republican Senators. I like to deal with facts because I am not good at spin. I love to watch you get frustrated because I am not as sheepish as all the other folks that call into to your show and agree with ever thing you say.
TIME magazine has the scoop on Obama’s double standard on earmarks: http://tinyurl.com/ahpqc2.
Way to re-write the facts to fit your agenda, Jeff.
Paul,
the quote that you posed in the above Obama never said that there would be no earmarks. He just said the would go line by line. The assumption is that all earmarks are bad, this is false. McCain was the earmark hawk not Obama.
Jeff, you certainly are not one to speak of criticizing equally. Your posts here on GWB are evidence enough that you cared for him as little as I care for BHO. The source of the earmarks is not at issue. What is at issue is BHO promising to rid the budget process of earmarks. He did not keep that promise.
2% of the budget, 2% now here is an investigation for you. Of that 7.7 Billion who are the top recipiants of those earmarks? 7 of the top 10 are Republican Senators. Why don’t you stop bashing Obama and be an equal opportunity critic.