The Daily Show is going to use this material for weeks. That's outrageously hilarious.

/Another politician with a broken promise, I really shouldn't be surprised.

He never said he'd eliminate earmarks. Only reform the earmark process.

"Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up... But let's go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

George Bush hates black people.

I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed that he's not going to veto the budget and have it rewritten. I realize it's Bush's unfinished business, but there's no time like the (economically crippled) present to start the reform process.

Check me if I'm wrong here, but this is a leftover from Bush. The bill was delayed (and funding was passed to keep the government running until now) and Obama is just letting it run its course.

Where was the outrage over this bill before January? How many of the politicians screaming about earmarks are the authors of said earmarks?

I anxiously await the revisionist explanations.

just to clear things up early: the bill was written BEFORE obama took office.

oh, and what is this - the eighth green thread on this exact subject this week?

and let's not forget that 40% of the earmarks are from holier-than-thou republicans.

you may commence wharrgarbling.

Oh, those earmarks. I thought you meant the illegal practice of government employees employing government-owned Sharpies on their personal ears. We have put a stop to that wasteful practice.

Ed Finnerty: Check me if I'm wrong here, but this is a leftover from Bush. The bill was delayed (and funding was passed to keep the government running until now) and Obama is just letting it run its course.

Where was the outrage over this bill before January? How many of the politicians screaming about earmarks are the authors of said earmarks?

I anxiously await the revisionist explanations.

My problem with this lies in the fact that he said he wouldn't do this. Heck, it was one of the reasons I voted for him.

It's never a good idea to start out a new policy and say "from here on out it's going to be different". If the budget has already been delayed, funding can be passed for another 30 days or so until the new budget gets re-written.

PacersJAM3s: My problem with this lies in the fact that he said he wouldn't do this.

What do you mean, "this"? He said he wouldn't do what?

FlashHarry:

the bill was written BEFORE obama took office

So who was sitting in the oval office when it was presented to the President for signature? Or should Bush be allowed to sign or veto it because the Congress started writing it while he was President?

and let's not forget that 40% of the earmarks are from holier-than-thou republicans.

And the other 60% came from where?

FlashHarry: just to clear things up early: the bill was written BEFORE obama took office.

Exactly. I blame the party that controls Capitol Hill!

pandabear: FlashHarry:

the bill was written BEFORE obama took office

So who was sitting in the oval office when it was presented to the President for signature? Or should Bush be allowed to sign or veto it because the Congress started writing it while he was President?

and let's not forget that 40% of the earmarks are from holier-than-thou republicans.

And the other 60% came from where?

um, democrats - naturally. what's your point? the dems hold approximately a 60% majority, which explains the 60% earmarks thing.

btw, obama said he'd "reform" the process - not eliminate it. i know it's the latest rush-approved GOP scareword, like "socialist," but "earmarks" aren't bad, per se. but mccain and obama are right - it needs to be reformed. the process needs to be transparent to eliminate any quid pro quo.

lunchinlewis: FlashHarry: just to clear things up early: the bill was written BEFORE obama took office.

Exactly. I blame the party that controls Capitol Hill!

i'm sorry - did the dems promise to eliminate earmarks in 2007-2008?

BuckTurgidson: PacersJAM3s: My problem with this lies in the fact that he said he wouldn't do this.

What do you mean, "this"? He said he wouldn't do what?

From the Article: Some lawmakers have urged Obama to veto the $410 billion omnibus spending bill -- saying it goes against the president's campaign pledge to bring an end to wasteful spending.

If you don't think 9,000 earmarks is wasteful spending then I don't know what to say. I just wish he would stick to his guns on this, veto the bill, and say "GBTW writing a reasonable bill".

FlashHarry: i'm sorry - did the dems promise to eliminate earmarks in 2007-2008?

Talked about it (new window), and as usual just held some meetings and got nothing done.

pandabear: And the other 60% came from where?

That would mean something if the people biatching about the earmarks weren't responsible for 40% of them, and the person responsible for the biggest dollar value of them wasn't a Republican.

lunchinlewis: FlashHarry: i'm sorry - did the dems promise to eliminate earmarks in 2007-2008?

Talked about it (new window), and as usual just held some meetings and got nothing done.

well, it sounds as if they curbed them and instituted new disclosure rules. a step in the right direction.

he doesn't have a line item veto and he won't get one. all you can ask from him is to put political pressure on congress to reform the earmark system, he can't make them do it and it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to defund the government if they don't.

lunchinlewis: FlashHarry: i'm sorry - did the dems promise to eliminate earmarks in 2007-2008?

Talked about it (new window), and as usual just held some meetings and got nothing done.

sounds like politicians in general

PacersJAM3s: My problem with this lies in the fact that he said he wouldn't do this.

He wouldn't do what? Allow earmarks? He didn't say that.

PacersJAM3s: If you don't think 9,000 earmarks is wasteful spending then I don't know what to say.

Without having looked at the 9,000 earmarks, I cannot say whether they are truly wasteful or not. The ones I have heard about are pretty innocuous, and more importantly, they do help to stimulate the economy, and that's what we need right now.

And it still does not change the fact that earmark spending is less than 0.5% of our expenditures. It's like endlessly biatching about whether or not we should spend money on a cup of coffee when we're blowing money on giant-screen TV's.

Diogenes: I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed that he's not going to veto the budget and have it rewritten. I realize it's Bush's unfinished business, but there's no time like the (economically crippled) present to start the reform process.

In this economy, it's much better to do it in the next spending bill than start re-writing last year's starting in frigging March.

FlashHarry:
the dems hold approximately a 60% majority, which explains the 60% earmarks thing

Oh, that explains it.

eliminate any quid pro quo

Oh, sorry, it was my understanding that the current system of ethics rules and law didn't allow a quid pro quo. I was under the impression that these earmarks were urgently needed expenditures and were in no way rewards for campaign donors, attempts to secure votes back in the district, or legislative gambits to get another legislator to back a bill.

Lando Lincoln: PacersJAM3s: My problem with this lies in the fact that he said he wouldn't do this.

He wouldn't do what? Allow earmarks? He didn't say that.

People are confusing McCain's promises with Obama's. And they assume Obama can change the entire political process overnight.

Liars.

All of them.

Democreeps and Republitards.

It turns out those earmarks are around 2% of the price of the whole bill.
What's the big deal?

/not to mention ... it should have been passed before he was even elected.
//lazy sacks of crap

submitter: Obama promises to put an end to earmarks

Oh, and actually, no. No he did not.

Most earmarks put people to work.

That is all.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

An earmark is something that appropriates funds for some local pork that gets tacked onto the end of an unrelated bill.

A spending bill, on the other hand, is a bill specifically designed to allow congress to actually use the money that we pay as taxes. That is it's purpose: to spend money on lots of things. You can't earmark a spending bill, you can only put in something else to spend the money on.

Lando Lincoln:
And it still does not change the fact that earmark spending is less than 0.5% of our expenditures. It's like endlessly biatching about whether or not we should spend money on a cup of coffee when we're blowing money on giant-screen TV's.

Spoken like a typical $4 latte drinking libtard.

That "leftover from Bush" bit is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Man up Obama, grow a pair. It would have sent a great message to the masses if he had encouraged Congress to eliminate these earmarks, or vetoed the bill if they refused.

FlashHarry: just to clear things up early: the bill was written BEFORE obama took office.

If there was only a way that a President could show his disapproval of a bill, send it back to Congress and request that it be changed.

If you are biatching about 8 billion in earmarks on a 400 billion omnibus spending bill when the economy has collapsed and we are giving banks and companies 100's of billions every month, you are an complete and total idiot.

And you are doing exactly what the powers that be want you to do. Dumbasses.

Does his earmark proposal come before or after every American gets their promised unicorns?

I WANT MY UNICORNS AND RAINBOWS NOW DAMMIT! sure it's unrealistic to demand this instant delivery, but Obamajesus said so. well not in so many words, and half I made up, and the other half a radio personality filled in. Definitely rainbows, I think a puppy was involved.

FlashHarry: um, democrats - naturally. what's your point? the dems hold approximately a 60% majority, which explains the 60% earmarks thing.

Not when it was written. Come on cant you keep honnest in your talking points.

soy_bomb: FlashHarry: just to clear things up early: the bill was written BEFORE obama took office.

If there was only a way that a President could show his disapproval of a bill, send it back to Congress and request that it be changed.

Considering this is, in effect, the years budget, i'm not sure he really can.

If he vetos it, people in government won't get a paycheck.

If this was an appropriations bill, yeah, veto that sucker. But this? I dunno. I wouldn't want to cripple the government, especially considering Obama still need the congressional muscle and processing in play to reform the earmark process.

I'd say a veto now could cost us a few months of renegotiation and so forth. I'm sure the GOP would love that though. Not only would they get a second bite at the apple, they could blame Obama for crippling washington. win win for them.

There are no earmarks in this bill!

Wow Obama is full of shiat, who knew. He is after all a politician.
For those of you saying earmarks are a small part of the budget. What is it going to take for you to start to make even some small steps to stop wasting money?

Wait until the next stimulus bill...

We have about another year of Total Farkers blinding supporting their lying president, before even they start to question themselves. Deep in their little minds, they will start to wonder why Obama seems more concerned about what fatass Limbaugh says, over the amount of earmarks in a stimulus package or budget. Or why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan or why we still have detainees in Cuba.

Semi-Sane: Does his earmark proposal come before or after every American gets their promised unicorns?

I'm still waiting for the Osama bin Laden I was promised "Dead or Alive".

Anyone want to show me where and when he said he'd "end" earmakrs?

I'll give you a cookie if you can.

Anyone?

Nemo's Brother: stimulus package or budget. Or why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan or why we

Actually, I think we just realize that earmarks are not that huge an issue. They only are when Fox and Rush start to prime the sheep with "earmarks!!" every so often. Its up there with "They will take your guns!" or "Partial Birth Abortion".

Antimatter: Considering this is, in effect, the years budget, i'm not sure he really can. If he vetos it, people in government won't get a paycheck.

He could veto it, tell Congress to strip the earmarks overnight and he could sign it next day. He owns the bully pulpit.

/Why the President needs a line item veto.

'Captain, the irony meter just went into overload. There's no stopping it. In 7 minutes, the warp core will explode.'

Because, obviously, reforming earmarks would be as easy as snapping his fingers, even though members of his own party seem ready to fight him on it.

I for one am outraged that Obama hasn't fulfilled every campaign promise within the first two months of his presidency.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Spoken like a typical $4 latte drinking libtard.

Excuse me?! I only drink mochachino, thankyouverymuch.

I get really OUTRAGED when people don't do what they didn't say they were going to do.

OUTRAGED!!!111

Dwight_Yeast: Anyone want to show me where and when he said he'd "end" earmakrs?

I'll give you a cookie if you can.

Anyone?.

They can't cause he didn't. But do you think they need a source other than "Hannity told me"? Do you realize the minds you are dealing with?

I, for one, am shocked and appalled that President Obama needs more than two months to simultaneously address our economic disaster and the time-honored Washington practice of vote selling. I feel like he gave me a unicorn, but the horn ended up being a magical UFIA. Also, we have given money to some American car companies, why are there no flying cars yet? What a rip off.

/ I will biatch about excessive earmarks in the FY 2010 budget