Obama Promise Tracker

[Peter Parka]

The killer is that many of these idiots actually think earmarks are an important part of their job!! willy_nilly::eek

Are they more important than lightbulbs? :willy_nilly::24:

 

[Tim]

This bill with all of the pork in it was supposed to be passed last September. This was Bush's budget and the Republicans had no problem with the pork then. So the next logical question is why didn't Obama just veto it and send it back to the house to have all the pork removed? Ok, let's assume that he did that. How long would it have taken to get a cleaned up bill through the house and senate? How many representatives and Senators would have voted for a bill where all of their earmarks were removed? How long would that have taken? You do realize that there IS a time line that this bill needed to be passed in, right? That this was the money slated to keep the government going.
So looking at all of that, don't you think it makes perfect sense to pass the bill as is and make your changes going forward? Why would you veto this bill now in the 11th hour when you know damn well that you will never get a clean bill through congress before sometime this fall?
I can see why this one will be signed into law. I can also see that he is making changes so it won't be business as usual on future bills.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

This bill with all of the pork in it was supposed to be passed last September. This was Bush's budget and the Republicans had no problem with the pork then. So the next logical question is why didn't Obama just veto it and send it back to the house to have all the pork removed? Ok, let's assume that he did that. How long would it have taken to get a cleaned up bill through the house and senate? How many representatives and Senators would have voted for a bill where all of their earmarks were removed? How long would that have taken? You do realize that there IS a time line that this bill needed to be passed in, right? That this was the money slated to keep the government going.
So looking at all of that, don't you think it makes perfect sense to pass the bill as is and make your changes going forward? Why would you veto this bill now in the 11th hour when you know damn well that you will never get a clean bill through congress before sometime this fall?
I can see why this one will be signed into law. I can also see that he is making changes so it won't be business as usual on future bills.

I thought he was supposed to be about change......Why didn't he say "Take out this pork, and get it to me with time to sign"

And if they don't he should call them out.....Wasn't that his drumbeat? Accountability?

Once again Bush, Bush, Bush you sound like Pedro my landscaper:24:

 

[Alien Allen]

This bill with all of the pork in it was supposed to be passed last September. This was Bush's budget and the Republicans had no problem with the pork then. So the next logical question is why didn't Obama just veto it and send it back to the house to have all the pork removed? Ok, let's assume that he did that. How long would it have taken to get a cleaned up bill through the house and senate? How many representatives and Senators would have voted for a bill where all of their earmarks were removed? How long would that have taken? You do realize that there IS a time line that this bill needed to be passed in, right? That this was the money slated to keep the government going.
So looking at all of that, don't you think it makes perfect sense to pass the bill as is and make your changes going forward? Why would you veto this bill now in the 11th hour when you know damn well that you will never get a clean bill through congress before sometime this fall?
I can see why this one will be signed into law. I can also see that he is making changes so it won't be business as usual on future bills.

That is making excuses Tim

The could have passed a temporary measure.

Regardless of time lines and where the bills started it is on his watch and he did not veto it.

The govt has no intentions of stopping earmarks. He has no intention of doing that either as he indicated yesterday when he said govt earmarks were fine. In so many words anyway.

Just more of the same lies and distortions from everybody.

 

[Alien Allen]

I thought he was supposed to be about change......Why didn't he say "Take out this pork, and get it to me with time to sign"

And if they don't he should call them out.....Wasn't that his drumbeat? Accountability?

Once again Bush, Bush, Bush you sound like Pedro my landscaper:24:

Once he was elected and it was clear he might have to sign this bill he should have said it would be dead on arrival.

He will never stop earmarks. He will always have an excuse. Same tired bullshit from DC and he is no different.

 

[Peter Parka]

Very clever how this is being steered offtopic without answering a few questions but I aint standing for it!

Poor parallel, but nice try.

Explain?

Now answer!:thumbup

 

[Accountable]

This bill with all of the pork in it was supposed to be passed last September. This was Bush's budget and the Republicans had no problem with the pork then. So the next logical question is why didn't Obama just veto it and send it back to the house to have all the pork removed? Ok, let's assume that he did that. How long would it have taken to get a cleaned up bill through the house and senate? How many representatives and Senators would have voted for a bill where all of their earmarks were removed? How long would that have taken? You do realize that there IS a time line that this bill needed to be passed in, right? That this was the money slated to keep the government going.
So looking at all of that, don't you think it makes perfect sense to pass the bill as is and make your changes going forward? Why would you veto this bill now in the 11th hour when you know damn well that you will never get a clean bill through congress before sometime this fall?
I can see why this one will be signed into law. I can also see that he is making changes so it won't be business as usual on future bills.

I had never pegged you as an apologist. Why didn't the Democrats make a show of solidarity with their leader by taking out all their earmarks (or at least take their names out & leave the pork like in the "stimulus" bill) and point shaking fingers at the Republicans' wastefulness?

Answer: words and deeds are permanently divorced in Washington DC.

 

[Accountable]

Any of these make you especially nervous? Especially ecstatic?

Promise Kept rulings on the Obameter
No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
No. 76: Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
No. 224: Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
No. 239: Release presidential records
No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA
No. 346: Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
No. 421: Appoint an American Indian policy adviser
No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year
No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
No. 459: Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
No. 480: Support high-speed rail
No. 498: Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy
No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

 

[Accountable]

So, did you make this much of a stand against the enfringment of your rights to choose between products when legislation was sanctioned against aerosol's with cfc's or styrofoam burger boxes from McDonald's or wherever you want to go to eat fatty food? (as that is your choice to) Maybe if American's were still exercising that right to choose an inferior product the hole in the ozone layer above Australia might be bigger, like over America, then people might decide it might be a better idea to go with the green option... just a thought:dunno

I think I was a teenager then and not so socially/politically aware. I also don't know how much of a stand people took on the issue back then.

The parallel is weak because we don't choose the kind of box our burger comes in. It's free. If we paid and chose from a variety of box types, and the gov't tried to take away our choices, yer damn right we'd be up in arms.

 

[Tangerine]

So, did you make this much of a stand against the enfringment of your rights to choose between products when legislation was sanctioned ... styrofoam burger boxes from McDonald's...

Well you kind of walked into a buzz saw here. You've done a bang-up job of making the case for the OTHER side of your argument.

There was no legislation that had anything to do with styrofoam boxes or whether or not McDonalds or anyone else can use them for their products. In fact, McDonalds made the decision themselves in 1990 to steer away from styrofoam as a result of feedback from their customers, and in response to several factors including a cost/benefit analysis and public image awareness in light of a huge movement from the environmentalists at the time.

So this scenario is EXACTLY what others are saying should happen now about light bulbs. Legislation and government mandates weren't needed. The system of free enterprise worked as it should. Consumers voted with their wallets and expressed a change in their preferences, and McDonalds responded by making a change that was beneficial to them.

If CFL bulbs are truly the better choice, then consumers will indeed make that change. I, for one, am skeptical that the "lower energy bills" are as much of a reality as is you purport, than I will make the switch on my own terms if I feel it necessary. If, as I suspect, the actual energy savings are miniscule in relation to the upfront higher costs of the bulbs, coupled with an inferior lighting capability, then I want to option to say "No thanks."

 

[itsmeJonB]

 

[JanieDough]

I don't think that his record is that bad.

 

[ssl]

My first question to you all is:

Why in hell would you believe a politician?

Secondly, bitching about something is for naught, if it does not start action.

If you want change, do it yourself. Then get others involved, as then you can show the positive results of that change.

Personally, I could not give one for Obama. I voted, and that was a mistake.

 

[Accountable]

I don't think that his record is that bad.

Care to get more specific?

 

[itsmeJonB]

Care to get more specific?

his debut album went platinum ?