Comments on: Obama Signs Spending Bill – With Objections
Add a Comment See all 107 Comments
- What was he suppose to do shut down the government? That really would have been good for the economy.
Posted by MICdunson at 1:08 AM : Mar 12, 2009
No, all he had to do was veto the bill, send it back to Congress to be re-written and let them temporarily fund the government until they could get the 8,000 EARMARKS off the bill!
But low and behold, he didn't object to the SPENDING, he only objected to those things that he 'DEEMED' might limit his power as president....something the press tried to crucify President Bush for....wonder where the media outrage is today over Comrade Obama's doing the same thing? - Reply to this comment
- I heard 2 audio clips from Obama yesterday. One was during the campaign when he said that he would work to ban all earmarks. Then there was one from yesterday that said you can't elliminate all earmarks. Hmmm.
- Reply to this comment
- Two months ago our country thought they elected their first minority leader. Now we find that he is really just Nancy Pelosi's servant. How sad it is for those who had hope!
- Reply to this comment
- What was he suppose to do shut down the government? That really would have been good for the economy.
- Reply to this comment
- Earmarks are earmarks! Repub or Dem, it doesn't matter. If Obama promised to get rid of them and he doesn't or balks (because I'm busy) then he failed a campaign promise, pure and simple. Don't make a promise based on your schedule!
I can't line by line watch the budget, 'm too busy. He should have never made the campaign promise then. - Reply to this comment
- We are all beginning to see that this clown will easily surpass Bush & Carter as the worst president in history. Unfortunately, he is doing the most damage. So far, his only achievements have been to spend massive amounts of money and tax the good, poor folks of the middle class he vowed to protect. We will soon feel the pain.
- Reply to this comment
- Some of the earmarks were his own, thay is why he signed it. He didn't object one bit. He is a tax and spend liberal from the word go. I hope Chris Mathews and all the other MSM get their taxes raised to 95 percent to pay for my retirement.
- Reply to this comment
- Roughly 40% of the "pork" earmarks in this bill were inserted by Republicans. And yet their leadership objects loudly? The RepubliCONS are the real hypocrites.
- Reply to this comment
- as evidence by his plan to raise taxes on every American household in the country...$651 BILLION dollars worth.
Posted by TheBiggestMistakeAmerica at 9:40 PM : Mar 11, 2009
Liar, liar, pants on fire. - Reply to this comment
- If Congress includes something in a bill which is unconstitutional, the President does not have to (in fact MUST NOT) do it. The final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional is, of course, the Supreme Court.
Posted by realnews12 at 9:04 PM : Mar 11, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink
Of course he can...nobody can force him to sign it.
The man is a liar...he signed the bill with over 7,000 earmarks in it....when he could've sent it back to congress and said NO DEAL....
You're forgetting that this is the man who ran up $900 million in earmarks while serving 143 days in the senate!
And just signed the biggest PORK economic insanity bill in the history of this country.
The only thing in this bill he's obviously objecting to, are things he 'deems' might limit his power as president...
He doesn't give a rip about how much money is taxed on the people...as evidence by his plan to raise taxes on every American household in the country...$651 BILLION dollars worth. - Reply to this comment
- No it didn't!
Posted by TheBiggestMistakeAmerica at 9:36 PM : Mar 11, 2009
Rowdy's back, folks. Lying again. - Reply to this comment
- The bill has been available online since it was first considered in the House. I'm not sure when that was, but it was certainly more than 5 days ago.
As I previously explained, the bill needed to be signed by tonight or else risk govt. shutdown.
Your credibility is zip.
Posted by realnews12 at 8:20 PM : Mar 11, 2009
+ report abuse
No it didn't! Try Government 101, before you drop out next time. - Reply to this comment
- I wonder if the congress does not agree with the statement president obama have given, what the congress will do.
Posted by callum4320 at 8:44 PM : Mar 11, 2009
If Congress includes something in a bill which is unconstitutional, the President does not have to (in fact MUST NOT) do it. The final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional is, of course, the Supreme Court. - Reply to this comment
- Obama is a liar and a hypocrite.
Posted by sandycat4 at 8:59 PM : Mar 11, 2009
What lie? What hypocrisy? Be specific, please. - Reply to this comment
- realnews, your excuse for signing that government would have shut down if Obama hadn't signed is hogwash. Congress could have passed an extension to keep government running while they passed a better bill. Obama is a liar and a hypocrite.
- Reply to this comment
- I wonder if the congress does not agree with the statement president obama have given, what the congress will do. Once the congress could not do anything to the statement, dose it mean that the provision in the bill which obama objects would not be carried out? Futhermore, does it mean that obama has a power to enforce a law by choosing?If it is true, the branch of legislation and administration power is broken.
- Reply to this comment
- Obama also said he would wait 5 days before signing bills - Another Broken Obama Promise.
Posted by hawksprings at 6:19 PM : Mar 11, 2009
The bill has been available online since it was first considered in the House. I'm not sure when that was, but it was certainly more than 5 days ago.
As I previously explained, the bill needed to be signed by tonight or else risk govt. shutdown.
Your credibility is zip. - Reply to this comment
- Obama said he would put bills on the web so we could all read them before he signed them - Another Broken Obama Promise.
Posted by hawksprings at 6:19 PM : Mar 11, 2009
Did you ever think to search for the bill online? The text of both active and already passed legislation is available via the senate.gov website and also the Library of Congress website (thomas.loc.gov). The omnibus spending bill (H.R. 1105) is no exception.
Looks pretty stupid to accuse Obama of "breaking a promise" when you could easily find the bill for yourself. - Reply to this comment
- If Obama did not agree with the bill why did he not send it back to have the earmarks removed?
Posted by azriverrat at 6:13 PM : Mar 11, 2009
Because the bill had a deadline of TONIGHT or the government would have to shut down for lack of funds. There was already a temporary continuance of spending at last year's levels but that authorization expired tonight. The President decided we are in too much of a crisis for the government to shut down just so 1.5% of the bill could be challenged. He has stated the procedures for next time. - Reply to this comment
- Are any Libs here concerned that when your Messiah does a press conference he only speaks off a teleprompter and will not take any questions?
Posted by hawksprings at 5:44 PM : Mar 11, 2009
I've seen him take lots of questions at press conferences. So, no, I'm not at all concerned. - Reply to this comment
