It's business as usual in Washington after all

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yeah he's just like Bush.

Actually he is indeed just like Bush. He says one thing and does another. Bush came in with the I will work with the Democrats like I did in Texas y'awl. Went on to just do whatever. Obama with tirade after tirade against pork--and yep massive pork bill.

I know you love the scientific approach so why do you abandon it when looking at politicians. They are full of crap no matter what form of measurement you use!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Actually he is indeed just like Bush. He says one thing and does another. Bush came in with the I will work with the Democrats like I did in Texas y'awl. Went on to just do whatever. Obama with tirade after tirade against pork--and yep massive pork bill.

I know you love the scientific approach so why do you abandon it when looking at politicians. They are full of crap no matter what form of measurement you use!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are way too many politicians to blame. We should adopt a totalitarian dictatorship.

[tjinaz]

There really is no difference.

At least Obama doesn't have the whole "He stole the election" crap going on.

The press is brutal and negativity sells. He came in with big promises of change and is falling woefully short. Mostly due to people in his own party. Reid and Pelosi want the power and will not let Obama restrict them from doing what they want. It in turn reflects badly on him.

[PsYcNeT]

Like a wiseman once said:

Voting for either party in the States is like choosing to be raped by two different rapists. One pets your head softly and apologizes for what he's inflicting, and the other throws on his spurs and screams "YEEEE-HAW!!".

Either way, you're still getting Fd in the A.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

There are way too many politicians to blame. We should adopt a totalitarian dictatorship.

Personally as I've stated before and still very much firmly believe a benevolent dictatorship is the ultimate form of government.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Azure

And like I pointed out when someone brought that up in the election thread, the 'federal' government, in the forms of earmarks, should NOT be paying for stuff like that.

I don't give a crap if its a MRI machine. There are proper channels to fund that kind of stuff. Probably so that it does get regulated, and monitored properly, so that politicians can't bleed the country dry year after year.

Obama is simply ignoring that.

Without earmarks the money is handed to the executive branch to piss away. The money will be spent either way. Earmarks allow transparency while throwing the constituents a bone.

The amount of the spending bill is the problem, not the earmarks.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

It's amazing how hard Obama is being critiqued. Reading the plethora of news, political and commentary sites it seems he gets no pass.

Bush got off easy compared to what Obama is facing.

Obama set himself up to fail. Hope and change were promised, and he's not delivering. The media took him at his word, and now they're seeing how wrong they were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Here's the un-businesslike Obama Cabinet: At Treasury, a former government official; at State, a former senator; at Commerce, a former governor; at Defense, a former government official and university president; at Energy, a former professor; at Homeland Security, a former governor; at Health and Human Services, a former governor; at the White House as chief of staff, a former congressman; at the White House as economic czar, a former university president and government official.

But then again, considering Obama is all about big government, it isn't a surprise who he picked for his cabinet.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Without earmarks the money is handed to the executive branch to piss away. The money will be spent either way.

If they spend less money, it will be spent anyway?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Without earmarks the money is handed to the executive branch to piss away. The money will be spent either way. Earmarks allow transparency while throwing the constituents a bone.

The amount of the spending bill is the problem, not the earmarks.

Well, if things are put through the proper channels, you reduce spending, because you won't have an insane amount of science grants going out every year. But by funding these 'projects' with earmarks, the grants that would get turned down are being funded anyways.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Personally as I've stated before and still very much firmly believe a benevolent dictatorship is the ultimate form of government.

I can't wait for Jesus to come back so he can be our dictator.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama set himself up to fail. Hope and change were promised, and he's not delivering. The media took him at his word, and now they're seeing how wrong they were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1



But then again, considering Obama is all about big government, it isn't a surprise who he picked for his cabinet.

Obama is about big government, whaaaaa? Obama doesn't want business leaders in his cabinet? Say it isn't so! It's almost like he's a liberal Democrat!

[driveway]

What the hell are you guys talking about? What did you expect from a person who always claimed to be a pragmatist and what other disappointments have you had?

The only thing I can critique Obama on so far is his poor vetting of some of his cabinet nominees, other than that he's been in office for a month and a half, managed to push through a hugely important stimulus package, announced his intention to proceed with his health-care initiative despite the economic times, given a date to get the majority of the troops out of iraq, re-focused American foreign policy on Afghanistan and begun funding stem-cell research.

This spending bill was written months before he came into office, vetoing it and sending it back to congress would only cause delays and piss off the congress that he needs to work with him to get his major initiatives passed.

So, as he's signing the bill he comes out with the statement:

“I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it’s necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can’t have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery.But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.”

He, and Pelosi, announced that in the future earmarks destined to a for-profit enterprise would be subject to competitive bidding.

Also,

since taking over Congress in 2007, Democrats have already substantially reduced funding for earmarks from the 2006 level, when Republicans last controlled the House and Senate.

politico.com

Looking at the earmarks themselves, there are 8,570 in the bill, accounting for 7.7 billion, or 1.8% of the bill itself. Of those, almost 7,000 are for less than one million dollars. (forbes.com)

Also, Obama himself, having been a senator when the bill was written, is one of only seven senators with no earmarks in the bill.

In summary: Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, what did you expect from this guy? Rainbows and unicorns?

[TurnedTheCorner]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Isn't it a touch early to start on broken promises? It hasn't even been a hundred days yet.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama set himself up to fail. Hope and change were promised, and he's not delivering.

You have concluded this after one month?

Olbermann on ear marks:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...44926#29644926

Obama's Honeymoon over?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I can't wait for Jesus to come back so he can be our dictator.

Don't think it requires divine intervention. Just somebody with a brain and principles he will stick to and who can get things done without having to waste time playing politics.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Don't think it requires divine intervention. Just somebody with a brain and principles he will stick to and who can get things done without having to waste time playing politics.

I'll do it. I'm not even greedy or anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Obama is about big government, whaaaaa? Obama doesn't want business leaders in his cabinet? Say it isn't so! It's almost like he's a liberal Democrat!

Yeah.

No wonder his administration is doing such a bang-up job with their 'stimulus.' All those cabinet members with incredible amounts of business experience are working night and day to find a solution.

Oh wait.....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Don't think it requires divine intervention. Just somebody with a brain and principles he will stick to and who can get things done without having to waste time playing politics.

Wouldn't work. Any form of government will become greedy by default. Especially one that has no term limits, and answers to no one.

Thats why you 'limit' the power of the government. Not increase it even more.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah.

No wonder his administration is doing such a bang-up job with their 'stimulus.' All those cabinet members with incredible amounts of business experience are working night and day to find a solution.

Oh wait.....

Yes because GWB's administration was all sorts of successful with business leaders running just about everything.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Personally as I've stated before and still very much firmly believe a benevolent dictatorship is the ultimate form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king