You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 8:56 AM

EARMARK REFORM

Apparently Obama is going to sign another earmark-riddled spending bill this week and THEN act to change the rules of the road.

Why didn't he use the power of his office to stop it already?

The words L-I-A-R and H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E come to mind.


salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 156.1 - Posts: 5313)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 10:12 AM

Maybe all the earmarks will be used up in this next round and there won't be any need to change the rules?


felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 10:25 AM

Really now, you weren't expecting change were you. Lmao @ voters yet weeping for our Nation. God Bless Our Troops.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 10:53 AM

When he signs this disaster, wonder if his conscience will bother him even a slight bit. The Democrats sipped in something that would remove scholarship money to underprivileged kids to go to schools like Friends where the Obama girls attend. The DC school system is among the worst-guess those kids are not a part of 'GREATER" either- Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 11:02 AM

Pat, there's a cure for people like you, but I'll keep this on a high plane. OK?

Felix, although Obama became very partisan in the fall campaign and had disdained public financing (a real key to his direction), I did expect change on this dimension.

Don't look now, but this guy is going through his honeymoon passes very quickly. And the media may soon turn on him.

Horrible legacy from Bush, but he is expected to produce. When someone like David Gergen who generally sides with Democratic President shakes his head about Obama's plans, he's likely headed for trouble.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6639)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 11:28 AM

Not disagreeing with you Collioure but wasn't Gergen a Reagan official -- not that this means anything since Dick Morris worked for Clinton, and even then he was still a steaming mass of ordure.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 11:37 AM

lmao If i don't try to see humor in this mess, I will surely toss in the towel. It was amazing to hear his teleprompter campaign speech defending when earmarks are good and when they are bad-reminded me much of defining "IS". Of course he neglected to tell people that the "good earmarks" had mostly been funded by the "earmarks"in his Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan-gesus isn't anyone getting beyond what he says? Linda

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 11:42 AM

Sheeze! What surprise did O'bama inherit? He said he was going change things for the better. When Does that start? How long does he need since he claimed to have all the answers? Legacy my A**. Why do people act like Bush ask for 911. I'm only saying O'Bozo shot off his big mouth and I am wondering when he is going to show all of the positive change that he promise. pardon my spelling, I've been hanging out with Linda.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6639)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 12:12 PM

I have to say that though some of the complaints here may be realistic I truly cannot imagine anything stupider (and trust me you've offered some good alternatives) than complaining about somebody using a teleprompter. Get a grip for goodness sake!

Obama for all his faults is one of the better impromptu public speakers I've heard. (if you can't accept that skip the rest of this). But when you make a political speech these days NOT to use a teleprompter would be very stupid; you have a message to deliver and nobody can see the damn thing so why not get itr right? We've had enough of presidents who are low on strategery not to need any more.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 12:28 PM

Everyone has their own opinion on this but EVERYTHING he says because it is so scripted sounds like a campaign speech-thought the campaign was over. I have only hear he himself do one live press conference. He knew who he was going to call on-guess Bush did too-but he knew the question they were going to ask and used them to tee off on another campaign speech.- 10 minute speech to the first question the only thing interesting about that thing was the ridiculous question asked by the old crone, Helen Thomas. Nothing he says rings true and if anyone actually looks at what he is doing it is terrifying-give me Robert Gibbs with his stumbling about a bit-must be a very difficult place he finds himself in-Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 1:16 PM

Barry, exactly when was the last time you heard him make any kind of comments impromptu? That teleprompter is with him at ALL times-even to the point of being a distraction to his Health and Human Services lady. He can't even introduce someone without using it-but they seem to be able to say something without it that borders on sense - He did speak impromptu to Joe the Plumber-perhaps he learned something there - Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:10 PM

Most of you do not listen to Fox but they are discussing something of interest. The President does not have ti sign this Omnibus thing until midnight. Now it is being hinted that he might use his power of Recision on earmarks he doesn't like. Consensus seems to be if he uses this rarely used power there will be "blow-back" galore from both sides by the lawmakers. I don't really understand this power but am going to look into it. Linda

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:11 PM

1. Policy isn't made through off-the-cuff remarks. So what if Obama uses a teleprompter. This is now standard operating procedure for national politicians. (I admit that young George seemed to have trouble even reading the lines on his teleprompter.)

2. I don't specifically recall what Obama said about earmarks during the campaign -- although this was a big issue for McCain. Even if Obama said he wanted to kill all such earmarks, however, I'm confident he never said under no circumstances would he sign a bill that had earmarks. Ending earmarks may be only one of several competing goals Obama has. I wouldn't call him a liar or hypocrite because he ultimately deemed it more important to get a spending bill in place than to veto such a bill with earmarks. The phrase throwing out the baby with the bath water comes to mind.

3. The hypocrites are the Republicans who rail against earmarks while larding up the bill with the same. Funny, that McCain now attacks Obama on the spending bill because of the earmars -- but not his Republican colleagues who put earmarks into the bill.

4. Not all earmarked expenditures are "pork", and the total federal expenditures that are earmarked don't exceed 1% or 2% of the total budget. In short, earmarks are a political diversion, being used to score political points, when there are far more serious matters to address. Had Obama vetoed the spending bill because of the earmarks, the phrase fiddling while Rome burned would have come to mind.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:14 PM

Linda:

What is this power of rescission of which you speak? There is no line-item veto at the federal level. I remain to be educated, but I don't see how, consistent with the constitution, he can sign the bill, and "rescind" the earmarks. Would very much like a reference to some discussion of this alleged presidential power.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:22 PM

I would dispute that David Gergen generally sides with Democratic presidents. The most you can say about Gergen is that he ultimately came to repudiate young George's unique interpretation of his presidential powers under the Constitution.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:25 PM

Don't have a reference yet but if I get one I will post it-right now it seems to be speculation and since I did not understand it thought someone might. I know there is no line item veto-Clinton had it for a bit but it was taken back-perhaps this will amount to nothing-will let people know if it amounts to more than talk-Linda

allena
Allena  (Level: 255.0 - Posts: 1389)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:32 PM

Odure has been mentioned. Let me continue. The issue of the teleprompter goes to the point of who is pulling his strings. We know about the Harvard invasion of liberals. We do not think of Obama as a liar but he clearly is not implememting what he had to promise while he was running. Not that failed promises are new!

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the rescission process as a Congressional check on unilateral action by the President to impound appropriated funding.

I hope this very civil debate provides folk the opportunity to get less star struck and more real as we watch our investments turn to trash while Obama's people believe we can print all the money he needs to pay off his supporters.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 2:46 PM

http://omnibusting.heritage.org/tag/omnibus/ this was actually directed to Bush- but makes me wonder after him trying to distinguish between "good earmarks" and "bad earmarks" still not clear how it works or doesn't work-trying to learn-agree with Jim on the scripted things seeming like someone is pulling the strings. Know he is in a position of power and have watched the Stock Market react negatively when either he or Geithner opens their mouths but there is absolutely NO sincerity to what he says-better reader than Bush or not. Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 3:24 PM

Never mind-it is a one deal. He signed it but did it behind closed doors no fanfare to this one-Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 4:37 PM

I may be "stupid' Barry in noting the overuse of the teleprompter but seems a lot smarter STUPID people than I am think it is significant as well Linda http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/10/obamas-reliance-on-teleprompters/

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 5:07 PM

Barry, you are correct. Gergen is known as an advisor to Presidents - Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, but he states that he is an independent. I've only known him since the Clinton assignment and now for many years on CNN where he has been pretty loyal to Clinton and didn't like Bush. Wiki says, "As of 2006 Gergen is a professor of public service at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of its Center for Public Leadership."

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 5:12 PM

For the moment I will only note that Obama told us he would change politics as usual/Washington.

Well, so far Washington has changed him and he has become increasingly partisan.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 6:26 PM

Reference to my teleprompter overuse being "STUPID" really makes me angrier the longer I think about it. I believe that anyone who hasn't noticed that he won't even answer a question without using it is the STUPID one. I am more that sure that the guy who Bush put in place to oversee the use of the first TARP and Obama kept was more than uncomfortable when trying to justify Citibank's loan to Dubai after it received the first TARP while facing the Congressional Committee. I agree it is outrageous and don't see how it is justifiable. My point is that guy did not have a teleprompter and believe the Committee would have shown righteous outrage had he done that. My issue here is not how the banks used or misused the money they received.. My issue is that the words of the ONE person Americans need to trust have no ring of truth when he cannot answer a question without that damn thing. Perhaps that is why many of the actor folks come off sounding rather stupid when they get away from the movie script-Linda

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 6:29 PM

Linda, Rocks!!!!!

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 6:57 PM

Tsk - your points 1,2,3,4 are all spot on. I seldom agree with you, so I always want to be sure I point out when I do agree - especially so whole-heartedly.

There are, though, videos out there of campaign speeches during which President Obama said all proposed earmarks would be online for the country to read and discuss before they would be up for vote.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 7:04 PM

I do not agree with #3, Jank.

This isn't a partisan issue, and frankly I disdain partisan excuses such as TSK offered. They just don't wash with me.

Both candidates promised reform. We do not have it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 7:11 PM

What makes his "earmark" speech and then signing a bill full of them -know they all do that- so ludricrous is because that is the premise he won the election on-Change we could believe in. Earmarks are not new and, yes, are a distraction from the big things like his budget which is total social reform The teleprompter overuse makes himj look moire stupid than I look for noticing that he cannot give an opinion without it. People are outraged when the earmarks are pointed out to them as most are ridiculuous although admittedly a smalll number when we are now dealing in TRILLIONS", but if it takes pointing them out to get folks to look at what he is doing, I will continue to point them out or as Everette Dirkson said a billion here a billion rthere and first thing you know we're talking about REAL money - Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 7:15 PM

Barry, stil waiting for you to give me the last "impromptu" speech or will even settle for an answer he gave. Linda

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 7:22 PM

I do agree on #3 because as a Conservative (which puts me closest to the republican arena) I am ashamed of our republican congress people for putting in 40% of the earmarks. They are the reason most people say there is no difference between the political parties. If we don't stand for our platform, we should be voted out and replaced by people who WILL support the platform. We work hard on putting those platform beliefs in place, and they are voted on by the party. Then our representatives go up to DC and ignore the platform they ran on - the platform we told them to follow.

We're supposed to be the party that doesn't do pork barrel spending or earmarks, according to our platform. The republican leaders don't leave me much room to complain about anybody else. (Remove the beam from our own eyes before we try to remove the splinter from someone else's.) We conservatives (republicans?) need to stop being hypocritical our our own beliefs.

This is why we had no one to vote for this election. No one running represented our party's platform. President Obama didn't just win because so many voted for him. He also won because so many republicans stayed home and didn't vote for McCain.

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 7:58 PM

Finally it's Happy Hour!

I like teleprompters. I might not like what the speaker has to say, but at least I know what he is saying. I wish Sploofus would invest in a "post-e-prompter" so I could better understand some of the drivel coming from some "post-ees". LOL Bo

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 8:02 PM

LOL Bo!!

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 8:06 PM

I must say Jank, though we do rarely agree, I do have an appreciation for the fact that you apply a consistent standard in expecting politicians words to match their deeds. I agree with that perspective, which is why I vote for so few major party candidates. Basically major party equates with liar. Apparently, it really is politically advantageous to be a liar.

I am neither an opponent nor a supporter of earmarks. I do take exception with politicians who use earmarks as an issue against the president -- a man for whom I did not vote -- while at the same time getting their earmarks in the bill. If Obama said all earmarks would be on-line, I'm not going to make excuses for him if that's not true, but that isn't the same as saying he would never approve a bill with earmarks. Andy, for all your attacks on my partisanism, in my opinion only a very deeply partisan person would be attacking Obama with this earmarks charge given that the biggest purveyors of this line are responsible for a goodly chunk of the earmarks. In fact, the GOP's receipt of 40% of the earmarks is a fairly close to the percentage of seats the party holds in Congress. Would you have him veto the bill over the earmarks? See my comment re fiddling while Rome burns.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Wed, 11th Mar '09 8:13 PM

Speaking of teleprompters-Biden used one- most likely wise-when introducing the drug czar, but they disappeared when the czar spoke. Glad you like teleprompters as if you listen to Obama you will see a lot of them and have said before if you don't like my posts-DON'T READ THEM!! Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 5:05 AM

TSK, you gave a partisan reason, and a weak one at that. Doesn't wash with me.

I am an independent. We are interested in RESULTS.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 2:42 PM

Andy: I know you claim to be an independent, but I've seen little in your posts over a period of time that would lead me to agree with your self-description.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 3:00 PM

Ask me about social issues sometime - I'm rather liberal there as some here already know. In fact you heard from me on race one evening, didn't you. I don't put up with any kind of discrimination.

But one thing about us moderates/independents - we like results. We don't want to hear partisan bickering. We want both parties to bear down and work out good solutions.

Same phenomenon you see in audience tracking during debates. When a candidate goes negative, they're turned off.

So your whining that the Republicans might be more hypocritical than the Democrats on earmarks doesn't matter to me. I want this practice to end

as both candidates promised to the nation.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 3:24 PM

Andy:

I saw you object to my reference to "dead white Europeans" as somehow being "racist". I didn't believe you truly considered this a racist remark then or now. It is a common technique on the right, however, to claim some comment shows racism against whites. In fact, my comment was intended to illustrate the inordinate attention paid in many schools that have "music appreciation" classes to white European classical composers versus, for instance, African-American jazz musicians. I certainly don't advocate that European culture is inferior because it is largely the product of white people. If I did, I guess I'd be a "self-hating white". If you want to pretend to believe that I have racial animus against white people, that's cool with me -- but don't expect me to conclude that your pretense is somehow compelling evidence that you are a political "moderate" -- even a political "moderate" but American standards.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 5:09 PM

Sorry, TSK, I read the comment as racist and I still do. There was no reason to note the color of the skin of those great European composers.

Music is what one hears, not the skin color of its composer.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6639)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 6:03 PM

Follow the example of my hero, Stephen Colbert...who does not see color.


(I joke, I joke; copyright Triumph)

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 6:12 PM

I don't see color, Barry. I wish everybody didn't.



jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 12th Mar '09 11:25 PM

Tsk - your comment "In fact, my comment was intended to illustrate the inordinate attention paid in many schools that have "music appreciation" classes to white European classical composers versus, for instance, African-American jazz musicians" isn't really as cut and dried as it seems.

Music appreciation class is where all time periods and types of music are taught and discussed, from elementary through college, pretty much all over the U.S.

But the reality of the situation is that the more modern music (no matter who, what, or ethnicity) has much more intricate rhythms and chord structures and doesn't lend itself to arrangements the beginning instrumentalists can play or even analyze.

We begin instrumental training by teaching structure and form and helping develop their listening skills for intonation. We have no choice but to start with the less intricate, which pretty much limits us to the early styles of music. For us to use them, somebody had to notate them in a way they still exist somewhere. Baroque and Classical periods do lend themselves to simplification for early learning.

By high school we do much more of all types, and then the kids start their own music groups and start developing improv and the more intricate styles. It's all there - it just has to be taught in increments of difficulty.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 13th Mar '09 10:00 AM

Jank:

1. It's possible my experience of what is being taught as music appreciation in schools is both too old and too narrow such that my criticism of it placing undue emphasis on European -- (Andy, is use of the word "European" also racist in your view?) -- classical music is no longer on-the-mark. I know what music appreciation was like in many Michigan school districts until 10 years ago or so. I also know that 40 years ago, the emphasis on European classical compositions in "music appreciation" courses was a topic in publications at that time. I do know that there seem to be more school jazz bands than there used to be -- although in the schools I know, still overwhelmed by school orchestras.

2. I know you are in the Dallas/Fort Worth area -- did you ever see Ornette Coleman at the Caravan of Dreams?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 13th Mar '09 7:11 PM

That depends on context, TSK. You might try "classical" next time. And simply "jazz musicians."


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus