Signing statements...Obama issues first...

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All this garbage about "it isn't my bill" only shows he has no backbone. I made up my mind that if he signed it, I was through supporting him as a president.
The government would not have shut down. Congress could have passed a bill in hours that would have extended the government running for another couple weeks. It would have given everyone time to decipher the bill and that is what they didn't want. They keep passing this crap so fast that nobody has a chance to read it. The same thing Bush did.

Obama is nothing more than Pelosi's dog on a leash.

I warned you guys before the election that Obama had no backbone and Pelosi/Reid would be running the show. Obama has never stood up to his party like he is going to start now. He will just be a rubber stamp for what ever Pelosi wants done.

What?

This thread is about signing statements, right? You know, taking things out that Pelosi and Reid wanted.

Can't you guys get your various "outrages" on the same page?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
Link

Obama: "I'm going to do less of what both democrats and republicans claimed was unconstitutional" (my words)

I'll forgoe the change statements and leave them to someone else

There was an old thread on this when Specter sued Bush, don't know what ever came of that lawsuit, I'll see if I can find it. edit: Here it is: P&N Thread

So have you waited long enough to determine if Obama (A) reduces the number of signing statements from Bush-era levels? (B) issues guidelines aimed at reducing earmarks in spending bills and then carries it out, lowering the number and amount of said earmarks?

Something tells me you haven't . . .

So if Obama performs less torture, less renditions, kills fewer innocents in pakistan, spies on fewer citizens, spreads less corporate welfare (but triples the budget deficit), and performs less constitutionally questionable signing statements, you're good?

You pick two sentences out of an article about something else, make an entire thread about it, then don't really have any beef to BBQ with.

Call me back when Obama issues a signing statement that allows any of those things.

He also didn't triple the deficit, you're on hack overdrive today buddy. I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Doh! You're right, he didn't triple it. He more than tripled it

2008 $459b
2009 $1,752b

source

/crickets...

Ok what would the deficit be after the TARP without anything else?

Close to a trillion.

Durrr...

Crickets right back at you, what the hell is this thread about?

1. You are against all signing statements(I find this unlikely)

2. You are against these specific signing statements(Again, doubtful since neither you or I know what exactly he disregarded)

3. You think Obama is a liar - because according to your OP article, he said he would reign them in, which you can't pick a definition for, thus you are bound to be disappointed.

All 3 of these are DOA.

This is just a troll thread and like I said, I'm disappointed in you.

Edit - As much as I would love to converse in P&N with you all day long, I am working, you know to pay taxes for the losers...

 

[Genx87]

Well if we want to get technical. While TARP was passed under Bush only 350 billion of it was spent under his watch. The other half is being spent by Obama.

Yeah I know, a sad day when we can toss around numbers like 350 billion and it looks small.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize

Doh! You're right, he didn't triple it. He more than tripled it

2008 $459b
2009 $1,752b

source

/crickets...

Ok what would the deficit be after the TARP without anything else?

Close to a trillion.

Durrr...

Crickets right back at you, what the hell is this thread about?

1. You are against all signing statements(I find this unlikely)

2. You are against these specific signing statements(Again, doubtful since neither you or I know what exactly he disregarded)

3. You think Obama is a liar - because according to your OP article, he said he would reign them in, which you can't pick a definition for, thus you are bound to be disappointed.

All 3 of these are DOA.

This is just a troll thread and like I said, I'm disappointed in you.

TARP? That Obama voted for? That magically goes away? Obama owns TARP and Obama owns the 2009 budget. Oh, 2010 there's no TARP, he only increased the deficit by slightly under TRIPLE. Again making Bush look fiscally conservative. And there's some seriously fucked up assumptions in his budget too...

Signing statements I think are unconstitutional. My vote would be for line-item veto.

I don't think Obama is a liar, Obama is a liar. That's well documented. Most politicians are.