Positive Reception For Obama Address

WhitingLib wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

At least on MSNBC they have conservative Joe Scarbourough on in the AM.

Don't forget Pat Buchanan. He's a regular on Morning Joe.

Good point,Lib. Now don't anyone faint,but I respect Buchanan and enjoy listening to him. He's also a regular on other shows like Hardball w/Chris Matthews.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

40% of those earmarks come from Republicans,including 75 million alone from GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

Doesn't matter...They should ALL be put on HOLD. 100% of them.

I don't look at that way. I believe that the reason Obama will sign the bill is that a lot of those earmarks are going to help the economy by increasing spending.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

40% of those earmarks come from Republicans,including 75 million alone from GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

Doesn't matter...They should ALL be put on HOLD. 100% of them.

So do you support closing down the government over this? Because that's the only alternative that is actually available. Personally, I think it would be beyond stupid to veto this bill. There is certainly no consensus in Congress, even among Republicans, over this issue.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/40688047.html

Quote :

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, said he supported Coburn’s amendment to strip out some of the earmarks, but not his five projects, which would cost nearly $5 million.

“Anything I have in the bill, I have a reason for,” Kyl told The Examiner.

But Kyl conceded that “different people have different ideas” about what constitutes an earmark.

Yeah. Let's just bring everything to a screaming halt so we can debate "what is and what isn't an earmark."

Artie60438 wrote:

I respect Buchanan and enjoy listening to him.

Me too...I think he's great. I like Joe Scarborough as well.
As far as I know...hell has not frozen over.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Let's just bring everything to a screaming halt so we can debate "what is and what isn't an earmark."

Exactly what's wrong with an EARMARK FREEZE for a damned year? What's more important than avoiding a Depression? World War III, maybe.

I see no reason to believe that the "earmark" spending, which is around 1% of the total, in this bill is going to cause our economic situation to substantially worsen. The time to remove earmarks from this bill was last year, not on the eve of the total shut down of our government. Can you imagine the impact of that on this economy?

The President has little choice in the matter at this point. He either can sign the bill and continue government operations, or veto it and create an immediate economic crisis by shutting down the government. It's an easy choce to make.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Let's just bring everything to a screaming halt so we can debate "what is and what isn't an earmark."

Exactly what's wrong with an EARMARK FREEZE for a damned year? What's more important than avoiding a Depression? World War III, maybe.

There will be a freeze on earmarks indeffinantly if Obama has anything to say about...and he does!


As for World war III, it won't happen now that Bush is out of office.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I see no reason to believe that the "earmark" spending, which is around 1% of the total, in this bill is going to cause our economic situation to substantially worsen. The time to remove earmarks from this bill was last year, not on the eve of the total shut down of our government. Can you imagine the impact of that on this economy?

The President has little choice in the matter at this point. He either can sign the bill and continue government operations, or veto it and create an immediate economic crisis by shutting down the government. It's an easy choce to make.

This could have been taken care of right after the Stimulus Bill was rammed down our throats. THAT didn't take long. And the government didn't come to a halt after that.

Work on the "stimulus bill" started on the day that the new Congress took office, not on Inauguration Day.

The reason the government would come to a standstill in this case is because it is currently functioning under a Continuing Resolution, which is set to expire on March 6.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3964279

Quote :

The bill — approved on a 245-178 vote — funds all agencies except the Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments, for which Congress last year approved appropriations measures. All other agencies have been operating under a continuing resolution since the beginning of the fiscal year. That resolution is set to expire March 6.

This is actually the final budget bill of the last administration and Congress, and it deals with expenditures between March 6 and October 1. This is left over business from last year, when Congress "punted" and passed the Continuing Resolution in order to keep the federal government functioning until now. I don't like the fact that Congress does this kind of stuff, but it's especially common during an election year. The fiscal year always starts on October 1, and unfortunately that's only a month or so before the elections. They couldn't reach an agreement before the 2008 elections, so that's why they passed the Continuing Resolution.

There is plenty of blame to go around if "earmarks" are that important to you, but it sure as hell isn't Obama's fault. He has to get to work on the next budget and Congress needs to pass it before the next fiscal year begins in October.

Scorpion, I guess ya just can't reason with unreasonable.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

OK, my final word on this subject (for now).

You Democrats gloat and glean about a 60% approval rating your guy has, and you blame the world's woes on George W. Bush.

The Dow Jones is in the toilet, and still dropping.
Unemployment is at what, 7%? and rising.
People are losing their homes every day.
You can't get a loan for a new car.

But your guy has a 60% approval rating.
If that's all that matters to you, then congratulations on winning the election.

My point in referencing the poll numbers is simply to illustrate how far out of touch Republicans and their followers are on the issues affecting us all today. Your post is a perfect example,expecting instant results to problems that took 8 years to create,after only 6 weeks in office.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

You might have a case......about 18 months from now.