Democrats Pass Massive Spending Bill w/ 9000 Earmarks

@Missy: Don’t encourage him. I’m not going to allow this thread to degenerate into another of his Bush bashes.

Blast,

You are correct; when Bush left, the National Debt (not the deficit) was $5+ trilion. As a Senator, Obama voted (or abstained from voting) to allow the deficit to grow under Bush. NO single president acts alone, and NO president and his administration increase the deficit or debt by themselves. The cooperation of Congress is required to really screw the American public (especially the taxpayers). However, Obama is preaching fiscal responsibility at a time when fiscal responsibility is of paramount importance, BUT his actions speak otherwise. Many of the spending increases and even tax cuts are likely to retard the country’s economic recovery, and this is according to the governments own accounting office! What is the average citizen to think when the President acts against the best advice of the advisors who are supposed to ensure that the government makes the best economic decisions? If the President wants to show that he intends to conserve spending so that only the necessary projects (i.e., no pork or earmarks) are funded, why doesn’t he listen to the advice of fiscally conservative economists? There is no way that government will be successful in ensuring that only responsible homeowners and truly needy agri-businesses get the aid he has secured, and so far there have been no signs whatsoever that Obama has any specific plans for holding corporate execs fiscally responsible for mis-spending bailout funds. He’s had five weeks already to announce even the slightest plans to investigate abuses of any corporate banking execs, yet Zip. Zilch. Nada. The American taxpayer already mistrusts the way Congress handles funds, and yet Obama wants to drastically increase the amount of money that slips through Congress’s fingers?

So what’s the story, the real story? The answer is glaringly simple: Obama is hell bent on expanding government control of the health, banking, end energy sectors of the economy, along with paying back the individuals and institutions that won him the election, including especially those of his financial supporters whose abundant financial support made him realize that his best shot at being elected required him to back out of his pledge to stick to the same public campaign funding limits that he and John McCain agreed to. In fact, Obama took a lot of pride (obviously false pride, by now) in supporting and pushing through meaningful campaign reform. He himself said that campaign reform was crucial too removing the influence of special interests from elections, yet once he smelled the enormous loot available to him he just couldn’t show enough restraint to stick to his agreement.

So we see the same irresponsible, money-hungry power-grabbing corrupt politician that he promised not to be. It is disgusting, and speaks volumes about his real ambitions. Rest assured that Obama will increase the tax burden on the middle class or leave one hell of a drastically enlarged national debt for generations to come.

I have never been fond of deficit spending by ANY president, but Obama takes the cake (and apparently wants to eat it and keep it, too!)

Jeff V

ruaqtpi2: So what’s the story, the real story? The answer is glaringly simple: Obama is hell bent on expanding government control of the health, banking, end energy sectors of the economy, along with paying back the individuals and institutions that won him the election,

He actually ran on a platform that indicated he would expand government’s role in healthcare and energy. He won so I figured he would do those things (along with the $288 Billion Tax cut).

Generally we agree, the president does not act alone. BUT, the president (whoever it is at the time) wields the greatest influence, especially when his party is in charge. Pres Bush had his opportunity and had much power when he ran up the $5 Trillion debt, and that was before the wheels fell off the economy. Now we have Pres Obama and the Dems who will spend according to their Keynesian philosophy to “rescue the economy” which of course Pres Bush & Company were pouring trillions into from the Fed, and the $750 Billion bailout.

ok, i’m going to give you guys this one. i realize that earmarks are just the way washington work, but i think obama should do something about it.

So, add this to his pile of broken promises.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.

Not to worry boys and girls:

On Thursday, Rob Blumenthal, a spokesman for the Senate Appropriations Committee said the one earmark in the bill that carries Obama’s name will be edited. The committee will attribute that earmark to other senators on the list of that provision’s supporters, but not Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090226/pl_cq_politics/politics3061639

also, if you take out the money for the recovery act, the increase is 8.32% Transportation has the biggest increase but i do believe that is a good investment because it is critical for commerce. if i’m not mistaken, the size of government increased more under bush than any other time since the great depression. and how many jobs did that get us?

@Blast

Hate to break up this constant Democratic mantra of blaming Bush and the Republican party for the whole 5-Trillion in deficits during his Presidency, but the fact do not support such a conclusion.

The Republicans were but marginally “in control” of Congress for only two of Bush’s 8 years. The 5-Trillion deficit was not created only in those two years. The other 6 years that Bush was in office, it was the Democrats who were in control of both houses of Congress.

We all know how these appropriation bills work, so stop pretending you don’t. The President submits the bill through both houses of Congress, who in turn tack on what ever additional spending they want added. then comes the horse trading. After that, the bill passes through Congress again until voted on, then it goes to the President to sign or veto.

The 5-Trillion of spending during his presidency is the fault of Bush & BOTH parties. The fact that he signed the bill does not absolve Democrats of their own responsibility. Get over it.

@ Mike”Every single one of these ridiculous earmarks has a Democrat voter attached to it.”

Sorry Mike but in fairness, Republicans are also responsible for some of the pork in the massive omnibus spending bill. It was Obama and the Democrat’s stimulus bill that the Republicans (sans 3) were locked out on.

@ditto: Republicans who took earmarks were simply acting under rules dictated by the Democrat majority.

However, I am pleased that a number of GOP House members have refused earmarks. I can’t find the list, so if anyone has it, please post the names.

I know that House Minority Leader Boehner has been at the forefront of the fight against earmarks going back to at least 2008 when he put forward another plan to stop pork spending.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?cat=20

Every effort along these lines has been shot down by Pelosi and friends.

The bottom line is that Democrats are 100% responsible for the current system and have stood in the way of reforms.