Are you liberals proud of this new administration?

Didn't Obama do a no earmarks statement earlier? I know he fail in the stimulus package. However, since this 410 billion spending bill is nothing but earmarks will he stand by his pledge and veto this bill?

LTRT wrote:

Wow, diminishing the front-loaded budget efforts by our president to an ethereal error message from Microsoft's OS... I can't really see a direct connection except the feelings it conjures - of frustration and hopelessness - and attaches them to our President. Maybe it's the "career IT" guy in me, but I gotta say that gave me a chuckle.

Scooby01_98 wrote:However, since this 410 billion spending bill is nothing but earmarks will he stand by his pledge and veto this bill?

I don't understand the outrage over all the earmarks in this Omnibus bill. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported today that $7.7B of the bill is earmarks... that's about 1.72% of the entire $410B

Small potato's?

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:However, since this 410 billion spending bill is nothing but earmarks will he stand by his pledge and veto this bill?

I don't understand the outrage over all the earmarks in this Omnibus bill. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported today that $7.7B of the bill is earmarks... that's about 1.72% of the entire $410B

Small potato's?

May be 'small potatos', but didn't he campaign on 'change', duh, it was even one of the promises, of course they're not meant to be kept now are they.

Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/03/obamas-promise-go-after-earmarks-line-line/

The $410 billion Omnibus bill for 2009:
The Omnibus, however, is loaded with earmarks. Obama and the White House could have used the bully pulpit to criticize them. But they have not been very critical, nor have they indicated any attempt to go "line by line" through the bill to look for wasteful programs, as Obama pledged during the campaign.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag said, "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:However, since this 410 billion spending bill is nothing but earmarks will he stand by his pledge and veto this bill?

I don't understand the outrage over all the earmarks in this Omnibus bill. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported today that $7.7B of the bill is earmarks... that's about 1.72% of the entire $410B

Small potato's?

May be 'small potatos', but didn't he campaign on 'change', duh, it was even one of the promises, of course they're not meant to be kept now are they.

Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/03/obamas-promise-go-after-earmarks-line-line/

The $410 billion Omnibus bill for 2009:
The Omnibus, however, is loaded with earmarks. Obama and the White House could have used the bully pulpit to criticize them. But they have not been very critical, nor have they indicated any attempt to go "line by line" through the bill to look for wasteful programs, as Obama pledged during the campaign.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag said, "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

I want to move through this slowly so I can make my point, if you "sneak" earmarks through on 30 bills and add/compare the earmarks in the Bush administration I think we'll be able to compare the differences between the past administration easily. This "big" bill is nothing more than a leaner, meaner front-loaded approach which may cost some political capital up front, but will pay off later. It's obvious that the House version needs some work but I think if people just calm down (rather, this GOP assault cools off a bit) a good solution will be found and most of the merit of the bill will come through better this way.

$200,000 for tattoo removals - that's awesome... I want to know who proposed that.

Pelosi wrote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, defended the spending blueprint that is needed to fund more than a dozen Cabinet departments for the final seven months of the federal fiscal year. She said the increases were needed to fund programs and policies starved for dollars under President George W. Bush. It is a $30 billion, or 8 percent, increase over comparable budgets for the same departments in fiscal 2008.

Source:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/obama-pleads-for-fiscal-responsibility

LTRT, I don't understand why you attribute Mr. Orszag's comments as a deflection from Obama's previous statement of commitment. Just sayin... the "history" isn't written yet. It hasn't come to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(military) wrote:Deflection is a tactic used in battle that describes "leading the target"; that is, shooting ahead of a moving target so that the target and projectile will collide. This tactic is only necessary when using slow projectiles, such as a crossbow bolt, or over long distances, such as in an aerial dogfight.

AND

politifact Obameter wrote:(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks. So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-hit-dems-over-tattoo-removal-pork-but-its-an-anti-crime-program/

But a little reporting reveals that that this “tattoo removal” program is an anti-crime program in the San Fernando Valley that re-integrates reformed gang members and makes it easier for them to find jobs. Two Los Angeles law enforcement officials I just spoke to — one who identified himself as a “conservative Republican” — swore by the program for reducing crime and saving lives.

Most clearly do not understand the significance of a gang tattoo. This is a legitimate rehabilitation program run in San Fernando Valley to reintegrate reformed gang members into society. A conservative republican, an LA Law Enforcement Official agrees.

meta4 wrote:LTRT, I don't understand why you attribute Mr. Orszag's comments as a deflection from Obama's previous statement of commitment. Just sayin... the "history" isn't written yet. It hasn't come to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(military) wrote:Deflection is a tactic used in battle that describes "leading the target"; that is, shooting ahead of a moving target so that the target and projectile will collide. This tactic is only necessary when using slow projectiles, such as a crossbow bolt, or over long distances, such as in an aerial dogfight.

Nice to see you pick your own variation of 'deflection' knowing well that is not what was meant.

deflection
Definition:

1. change of course: a change of course that results from hitting somebody or something
2. amount something deflects: the amount or distance by which something is deflected
3. act of diverting attention: the act of directing people's attention or criticism away from something
4. movement of needle away from zero: a definite movement of the indicator on a measuring instrument
5. engineering movement of structure under load: the movement of a structure or a part of a structure when it is bearing a load
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/deflection.html

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:LTRT, I don't understand why you attribute Mr. Orszag's comments as a deflection from Obama's previous statement of commitment. Just sayin... the "history" isn't written yet. It hasn't come to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(military) wrote:Deflection is a tactic used in battle that describes "leading the target"; that is, shooting ahead of a moving target so that the target and projectile will collide. This tactic is only necessary when using slow projectiles, such as a crossbow bolt, or over long distances, such as in an aerial dogfight.

Nice to see you pick your own variation of 'deflection' knowing well that is not what was meant.

deflection
Definition:

1. change of course: a change of course that results from hitting somebody or something
2. amount something deflects: the amount or distance by which something is deflected
3. act of diverting attention: the act of directing people's attention or criticism away from something
4. movement of needle away from zero: a definite movement of the indicator on a measuring instrument
5. engineering movement of structure under load: the movement of a structure or a part of a structure when it is bearing a load
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/deflection.html

I meant no offense to you personally LTRT.

I'm merely suggesting that it seemed the use of Orszag's comments to "speak for" Obama's intention ( which neither you or I can predict what he will do in the coming days ) is IMO, a generally close tie in to that military tactic of deflection.

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I say I was quite excited to use *that* def. with my comment. Look at this thread, it's a *slightly* polarized dance between pro/con, no?

meta4 wrote:I meant no offense to you personally LTRT.

I'm merely suggesting that it seemed the use of Orszag's comments to "speak for" Obama's intention ( which neither you or I can predict what he will do in the coming days ) is IMO, a generally close tie in to that military tactic of deflection.

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I say I was quite excited to use *that* def. with my comment. Look at this thread, it's a *slightly* polarized dance between pro/con, no?

Touché

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:I meant no offense to you personally LTRT.

I'm merely suggesting that it seemed the use of Orszag's comments to "speak for" Obama's intention ( which neither you or I can predict what he will do in the coming days ) is IMO, a generally close tie in to that military tactic of deflection.

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I say I was quite excited to use *that* def. with my comment. Look at this thread, it's a *slightly* polarized dance between pro/con, no?

Touché

That's my man!