Friday, February 27, 2009

The Bitter Taste of Irony


Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice -- like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.

Never fear fan-boys. They are going to "edit" the bill to remove his name. Uh yeah, so boom, history rewritten. Enjoy.

This story will not have any earmarks.

Earmark:

Remember folks, the ENTIRE deficit was inherited by this administration, who just happened to be part of the assemblies that added earmarks to bills.

Oops, sorry I promised no earmarks to this story. Don't worry I'll edit those out later.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Was Obama on the Campaign trail in 01,02,03,04,05 and 06?

What a complete load of BS you spew! Either that, or you are too dense to be capable or reading a graph.

In case you need an education, the Bush Administration was in power in that time, the Republican party held majority in the house until November 2006, after which the Democrats took the majority.

Your Bias is pathetic! But, as usual, not surprising, nor unexpected.

OkieRover said...

You missed the entire point.
Congress are the people who EARMARK bills not presidents.

Obama said there would be no earmarks. And then OBAMA's own earmark wound up in the bill.

CONGRESS is guilty. EARMARKS are the problem.

Bias? I do not like earmarks. I personally have stated many many times on this blog that the president should have LINE ITEM VETO authority. If that was the case there would not be amendments and earmarks.

And my education is just fine. You missed the point. Earmarks went up during the Bush administration because the SHITTY two party system we have does not allow for cooperation.

Anonymous said...

The catchall bill is an accumulation of leftovers from 2008 -- spending measures that weren't enacted before the 110th Congress expired. It's moving through Congress now because a temporary extension of funds to run the government will run out after March 6.

Obama has no control over earmarks he made before he promised not to attach his name to any earmarks. Since at the time this bill was put fourth, he was in Congress, where the hell did he do it as President?!?! Holy shit the stupidity of pundits is never ending!

OkieRover said...

Yes, yes we know all that. The fact it is IRONIC has not changed. I find it interesting that a president that preaches NO EARMARKS, used earmarks as a senator, the three or four times he showed up to do his job last year.
And if you are going to insult the writers of this site (pathetic, idiots) have the courtesy to login so we can all see who you are. Otherwise you may find your heart felt comments deleted in the future.