Wait 'til next year

[airdvr 198]

White House Budget Chief Lays Off Earmarks

Though he was a senator when the 2009 budget groundwork was being laid, President Obama doesn't want to look back at the spending bill that has yet to pass, his top aide says.

Next year, according to Orszag, when Obama is fully involved in the next budget from the start, earmarks will be handled differently.

The Promise:
"And, absolutely, 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."


Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Muenkel 0]

Someone please tell the president that he does have the power to veto!!!

_________________________________________
Chris

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Someone please tell the president that he does have the power to veto!!!

As sad as it makes me to say this, Bush must not have known he could either

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The president really does need a line item veto.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The president really does need a line item veto.

As nice as the idea may sound, a line item veto would be far too easy for the President to abuse and could upset the checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

The president really does need a line item veto.

As nice as the idea may sound, a line item veto would be far too easy for the President to abuse and could upset the checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

The Supreme Court has already ruled it out.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

The president really does need a line item veto.

As nice as the idea may sound, a line item veto would be far too easy for the President to abuse and could upset the checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Doesn't the Governator have one in California?

Quote

The Supreme Court has already ruled it out.

Fortunately in a democracy you can change the terms of reference for the SCOTUS (ya, I know it isn't easy). This would give people a chance to really consider whether to make it as hard to override as a full bill veto, or something less onerous.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Someone please tell the president that he does have the power to veto!!!

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


As sad as it makes me to say this, Bush must not have known he could either

I agree. Atleast GWB sent it back to Congress to remove some of the bullshit. He did end up signing it for a 6 month period. Unfortunately, we cannot change that. What we can 'hope' to 'change' is what is happening in the present.

_________________________________________
Chris

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

The Promise:
"And, absolutely, 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."


Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

OUCH.... that's gotta sting!!! I posted the gallup data of his first 30 days in office under the Obama Economy thread and it would appear that people are seeing that his track record as a politician is dominating his 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric. It never ceases to amaze me on how people were so easy to SELL during the general election. I would love to have Obama be my traveling salesman or marketing agent for my company.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Andy9o8 0]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

[airdvr 198]

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Problem I have is he's saying what he thinks we want to hear and doing something different. Typical politician...although somewhat less transparent. His whopping 3 years of experience is beginning to show.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 18]

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents?

You may be surprised...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents?

You may be surprised...........

Actually, yes, I have:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113923/History-Foretells-Obama-First-Job-Approval-Rating.aspx

Gallup poll Presidential approval rates after about 100 days in office:

Nixon: 62%
Carter: 63%
Reagan: 68%
Bush-1: 56%
Clinton:55%
Bush-2: 62%

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents?

You may be surprised...........

Actually, yes, I have:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113923/History-Foretells-Obama-First-Job-Approval-Rating.aspx

Gallup poll Presidential approval rates after about 100 days in office:

Nixon: 62%
Carter: 63%
Reagan: 68%
Bush-1: 56%
Clinton:55%
Bush-2: 62%

and when he hits a 100 days these numbers will be relavant.

How about his comparisions at this point?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents?

You may be surprised...........

Have you looked at how the shitty economy he inherited from his predecessor compared to past presidents?

YOU may be surprised, but no-one else is.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[masterrig 1]

I think, it's the 'big money' lobbyists who don't want a line-item veto for the president. The way it is now, way too much money is spent on frivilous crap and most often, someone else profits from it. How could the president abuse it? Cutting-out frivilous spending riders doesn't sound like abuse to me.


Chuck

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx

Quote

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.

Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents?

You may be surprised...........

Have you looked at how the shitty economy he inherited from his predecessor compared to past presidents?

YOU may be surprised, but no-one else is.

and YOU continue to ignore the root cause as was predicted by the Bush Admin in 2001 (care to see the Senate hearing again on youtube?)

Granted the Bush admin and the Republican spending play a big peice in this too but, as long as you got YOUR scapgoats to CYA I guess you are fine with all of this because, unless fixed correctly, (and this big pork bill will not do that) it will happen again,

But you go off topic to CYA yet again

sad..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How could the president abuse it? Cutting-out frivilous spending riders doesn't sound like abuse to me.

I don't think cutting out frivolous spending would be abusive. However, there would be nothing to keep the president from vetoing what Congress considers to be the most important aspects of a bill, while leaving in only the pet projects that the President approves of.

Many times, Congress will add things into a bill that the President wants, knowing that without those additions, the President will veto the bill. It's one of the methods used to arrive at a compromise between the two branches. With line item veto power, the President would have less incentive to work with Congress, since he would not be limited to only the options of signing or vetoing a bill. Furthermore, he could easily undermine any bipartisan efforts on the part of legislators by using the line item veto to remove any part of a bill that wasn't explicitly supported by his own party.

The current system is better. The President already has the power to veto bills that have passed both houses, informing them of his specific concerns about the proposed legislation. They can then override his veto, or redraft the bill and vote on the new version.

If the last President taught us anything, it should be that, sooner or later, there will be a President (from whatever party) that attempts to abuse the power vested in the Executive Branch. We need to be careful to make sure that branch is not given too much power, and that the system of checks and balances remains strong and intact. Line item veto would weaken that system.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Politicians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause.
I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did.


Chuck

[mnealtx 0]

Regarding line item veto -

I've long been in favor of a 'no earmarks' law - if a project is important enough to be funded, it's important enough for it's own bill.

No more earmarks, no more riders - each project gets it own 'straight bill'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Regarding line item veto -

I've long been in favor of a 'no earmarks' law - if a project is important enough to be funded, it's important enough for it's own bill.

No more earmarks, no more riders - each project gets it own 'straight bill'.

You GO, Man! Amen! I've been thinking that for years. To me, riders and earmarks leave the door wide open for crooked politicians taking 'gifts' from those wanting the riders and earmarks. (?) Seems to me, earmarks and riders just get us deeper in debt. Thanks, again!


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Politicians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause.
I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did.


Chuck

+1


You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Politicians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause.
I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did.

I agree that a problem exists. I disagree that a line item veto would solve the problem. It certainly wouldn't solve the problem without creating its own to replace it with.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Politicians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause.
I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did.


Chuck

+1


You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee.

That would put most of all presidents admins/cabinets in prison

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Politicians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause.
I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did.


Chuck

+1


You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee.

That would put most of all presidents admins/cabinets in prison

A bribe is a bribe...

I think both those who accept the bribes... and those who entice our public servants with them...need to spend some quality time with Bubba the butt ranger.


We are in desparate need of reform of our political system. The money that lobbyists are giving our politicians to BUY access should be criminal.