Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PowerLine)   Press secretary Robert Gibbs was reduced to stammering incoherence when he was asked today about the Congressional Democrats' utter lack of fiscal sanity, Obama breaking pledge to end earmarks. American sheeple? Meh, whatever   (powerlineblog.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Feb 2009 at 2:33 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-02-24 09:35:14 AM  
submitter: Congressional Democrats' utter lack of fiscal sanity

Should be Congress' utter lack of fiscal sanity


We didn't get to where we are now following the leadership of one party's Congressional members

/Tax and Spend Democrats
//Borrow and Spend Republicans
///Spend, spend, spend....
 
2009-02-24 10:21:29 AM  

40yoVirgin: Should be Congress' utter lack of fiscal sanity


Should be Congress' utter lack of sanity
 
2009-02-24 11:31:13 AM  

Last One Left: 40yoVirgin: Should be Congress' utter lack of fiscal sanity

Should be Congress' utter lack of sanity


img9.imageshack.us

Congress...because one of us is not as insane as all of us.

 
2009-02-24 11:34:28 AM  
Failmitter: Press secretary Robert Gibbs was reduced to stammering incoherence when he was asked today about the Congressional Democrats' utter lack of fiscal sanity, Obama breaking pledge to end earmarks. American sheeple? Meh, whatever

1) Obama never made a pledge to end earmarks, McCain did.
2) Powerline did some creative editing of the actual transcript.
 
2009-02-24 11:47:46 AM  

Code_Archeologist: Powerline did some creative editing of the actual transcript.


The only discrepancy I saw was the addition of "But would he be firm"

Here's the official transcript: Link (new window)

And it's not like Gibbs was "reduced to stammering". I read the press conferences on there when I can and he always seems to talk like that. If he doesn't know an answer, he tells the press corps he doesn't know, but couches it in terms of having to talk to Obama or some other department to get the facts.

One thing I'd like to point out is that nobody's seen this bill yet. Even the reporter says, "there are reports from the Hill that there are over 9,000 earmarks in there already..." There's a big difference between rumor and fact. However, I really hope there isn't any real pork in there. The bill was supposed to be for infrastructure, education, law enforcement, and affordable housing. I thought the Stimulus Bill was supposed to take care of that.
 
2009-02-24 11:58:45 AM  
As far as i'm concerned, the Republicans lost the right to complain about bloated spending bills 20 years ago.
 
2009-02-24 12:05:52 PM  

Weaver95: As far as i'm concerned, the Republicans lost the right to complain about bloated spending bills 20 years ago.


I agree, but this seems ill-timed and inappropriate. Why resurrect an old bill that is meant to do what the Stimulus Bill is supposed to? Just because Bush was sure to veto it and they're hoping Obama won't? I would rather they compare it to the Stimulus Bill and ONLY push for sensible programs that weren't included in it. That should take the price-tag down considerably.
 
2009-02-24 12:11:48 PM  
Greenlit? Really? Oy.
 
2009-02-24 12:14:19 PM  

DamnYankees: Greenlit? Really? Oy.


I'll get the popcorn.
 
2009-02-24 12:22:36 PM  

brigid_fitch: The only discrepancy I saw was the addition of "But would he be firm"


There were also the addition of ellipses and that weird (ph) which makes reading the transcript on powerline difficult and makes it "sound" incoherent.
 
2009-02-24 12:23:45 PM  

Code_Archeologist: 1) Obama never made a pledge to end earmarks, McCain did.
2) Powerline did some creative editing of the actual transcript.


3) Earmarks account for less than 0.3% of expenditures, so it's a huge farking waste of time to endlessly fret about them like we do. Focus on the big-ticket items instead.
 
2009-02-24 12:25:42 PM  

brigid_fitch: Weaver95: As far as i'm concerned, the Republicans lost the right to complain about bloated spending bills 20 years ago.

I agree, but this seems ill-timed and inappropriate. Why resurrect an old bill that is meant to do what the Stimulus Bill is supposed to? Just because Bush was sure to veto it and they're hoping Obama won't? I would rather they compare it to the Stimulus Bill and ONLY push for sensible programs that weren't included in it. That should take the price-tag down considerably.


I think Pelosi and Reed are passing legislation just because they've got the votes to do it. Stupid, short sighted and petty...but that's what they want to do, then they get to do it.

Of course, the Republicans are just as bad right now. And even if they DO find a valid objection, they've cried wolf so many times and on so many issues that they've lost all credibility with voters.
 
2009-02-24 12:27:17 PM  

Code_Archeologist: brigid_fitch: The only discrepancy I saw was the addition of "But would he be firm"

There were also the addition of ellipses and that weird (ph) which makes reading the transcript on powerline difficult and makes it "sound" incoherent.


Ah--I was obviously just comparing the words spoken. You're absolutely right, though. Powerline added a BUNCH of dashes & ellipses to make it appear as though he was stammering. Also, an extra "let me" thrown in for good measure. Not to mention deleting any dashes or ellipses from the reporter's question.
 
2009-02-24 12:31:41 PM  

Weaver95: I think Pelosi and Reed are passing legislation just because they've got the votes to do it. Stupid, short sighted and petty...but that's what they want to do, then they get to do it.

Of course, the Republicans are just as bad right now. And even if they DO find a valid objection, they've cried wolf so many times and on so many issues that they've lost all credibility with voters.


Just because Republicans ran amok is no excuse for the Dems to do it. If they push through this bill, they're slitting their own throats for the next election.

Republicans are bound & determined to take back Congress & the House, just like they did w/Clinton. The difference right now is that Clinton & the rest of the party never saw it coming. If this bill gets through right now without MASSIVE overhauling, then not only will the Dems see the overthrow coming, they'll be powerless to stop it.
 
2009-02-24 12:39:17 PM  
Obama breaking pledge to end earmarks

Pledge? What Obama Pledged: "The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint's amendment (calling for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in the Senate) and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,"

And he did support DeMint's amendment, and he did not request earmarks for Illinois.

The Executive branch (Obama) doesn't get to tell the Legislative branch (Congress) what to do. But YOU do. Don't like the earmarks? Call your Senator and Representative. Write a letter and fax it to them. Stop wharrgarbling and demand that the people YOU voted in to represent you start actually representing you.
 
2009-02-24 12:51:21 PM  

DrRatchet: The Executive branch (Obama) doesn't get to tell the Legislative branch (Congress) what to do. But YOU do. Don't like the earmarks? Call your Senator and Representative. Write a letter and fax it to them. Stop wharrgarbling and demand that the people YOU voted in to represent you start actually representing you.


Fark that. I want as many earmarks as possible for my state.

Bring home that bacon, baby! Fry it up and let's eat!
 
2009-02-24 01:05:01 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Fark that. I want as many earmarks as possible for my state.

Bring home that bacon, baby! Fry it up and let's eat!


I agree... but there should be no earmarks for the other 49 states I don't live in, because that is just wanton waste.
 
2009-02-24 01:07:46 PM  
Weaver95: As far as i'm concerned, the Republicans lost the right to complain about bloated spending bills 20 years ago.

More like 29 or so.
 
2009-02-24 01:23:05 PM  

Code_Archeologist: I agree... but there should be no earmarks for the other 49 states I don't live in, because that is just wanton waste.


No, they can have their bacon too.
 
2009-02-24 01:32:10 PM  
Powerline?
No, thanks.
 
2009-02-24 01:34:12 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Fark that. I want as many earmarks as possible for my state.

Bring home that bacon, baby! Fry it up and let's eat!


Typical short sighted thinking.

Who do you think pays for that bacon? That's right, you do. Except instead of a pound of bacon, you get about 2 ounces once it gets filtered through all the layers of government.
 
2009-02-24 01:38:36 PM  

Crosshair: Typical short sighted thinking.

Who do you think pays for that bacon? That's right, you do. Except instead of a pound of bacon, you get about 2 ounces once it gets filtered through all the layers of government.


1) Illinois pays out more than we get back, so we're due.
2) Earmark spending is chump change so what the hell does it matter anyway.
 
2009-02-24 02:37:01 PM  
Is that what they mean by GOTCHAreporting

and the rest of this thread will be what they mean when they say "It OK when we do it"
 
2009-02-24 02:37:59 PM  
Obama says he will cut the deficit in half. This days after increasing it by approximately 50%. Fiscal sanity? How about we just get a consistent message?
 
2009-02-24 02:39:35 PM  
static.powerlineblog.com

Do not want.
 
2009-02-24 02:41:30 PM  
"I have to ask Obama about his specific stance on the subject" is "stammering incoherence"?
 
2009-02-24 02:42:15 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama says he will cut the deficit in half. This days after increasing it by approximately 50%. Fiscal sanity? How about we just get a consistent message?


Yep. Obama is boldly going to return deficits to pre-Obama levels. By 2013.

In the meantime, he's promised some rather extreme deficit spending for the next three years.
 
2009-02-24 02:42:31 PM  

Trollomite: Is that what they mean by GOTCHAreporting

and the rest of this thread will be what they mean when they say "It OK when we do it"


Ok when who does what exactly?
 
2009-02-24 02:43:43 PM  
Powerline links to an article with this fascinating statement:



The 12 fiscal 2009 appropriations bills include 5 percent less funding for earmarks than in fiscal 2008,
 
2009-02-24 02:44:49 PM  

helix400: Yep. Obama is boldly going to return deficits to pre-Obama levels. By 2013.

In the meantime, he's promised some rather extreme deficit spending for the next three years.


Weird yesterday you said you had no problem with the amount of spending you just were CONCERNED it was being spent on what it shouldn't be.

Today that seems to be another story.

You seem to shift your position on things on an hourly basis, except for it's always to attack Obama.
 
2009-02-24 02:46:18 PM  
Ha! Powerline.
 
2009-02-24 02:46:49 PM  
Since I've finally violated my long-standing commitment and added someone to my ignore list.... Does anyone know if there's any way to put submitters on "Ignore"?
 
2009-02-24 02:46:49 PM  

40yoVirgin: submitter: Congressional Democrats' utter lack of fiscal sanity

Should be Congress' utter lack of fiscal sanity


We didn't get to where we are now following the leadership of one party's Congressional members

/Tax and Spend Democrats
//Borrow and Spend Republicans
///Spend, spend, spend....


This, but most Total Farkers are too full of partisanship to realize that. They scream at Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, but then are silent when Obama outspends him.
 
2009-02-24 02:47:28 PM  

40yoVirgin: Tax and Spend Democrats


How stupid can you be? They just passed the biggest tax cut in history. Time to think up some new lies.
 
2009-02-24 02:47:52 PM  

Corvus: Weird yesterday you said you had no problem with the amount of spending


I see you're still fighting a strawman.
 
2009-02-24 02:49:00 PM  
Oh this will be a popcorn-worthy thread if there ever was one.

www.peoriadefense.com

/Hot like butter
 
2009-02-24 02:49:27 PM  

ilambiquated: How stupid can you be? They just passed the biggest tax cut in history. Time to think up some new lies.


So then we're back to borrow and spend? Whoopie! Change we can REALLY believe in!
 
2009-02-24 02:51:23 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama says he will cut the deficit in half. This days after increasing it by approximately 50%. Fiscal sanity? How about we just get a consistent message?


I suppose you don't realize that cutting the deficit by half after raising it by 50% is a net reduction of 25%.

That would be math
 
2009-02-24 02:51:39 PM  
The irony of Obama having a Fiscal Responsibility Summit after passing the largest spending bill ever and planning multi-trillion dollar deficits for years to come is overwhelming. Sadly, the sheep have pulled the wool over their eyes.
 
2009-02-24 02:52:06 PM  
I am sure there will be pork in the stimulus bill, and no doubt some of the Democrats will be responsible. However, in California, the Republicans used the budget crisis to get some stuff passed that had nothing to do with solving the budget crisis (a $1B corp. tax break and changes to some labor laws).

So when the stimulus bill comes out, and we find elements of pork in it, I'll want to know who was responsible for it. It will be easy for the Republicans to blame it all on the Democrats, but a lot of negotiating and compromising was done in an attempt to get a few Republicans to get on-board.
 
2009-02-24 02:53:03 PM  

ilambiquated: Shaggy_C: Obama says he will cut the deficit in half. This days after increasing it by approximately 50%. Fiscal sanity? How about we just get a consistent message?

I suppose you don't realize that cutting the deficit by half after raising it by 50% is a net reduction of 25%.

That would be math


And bush left office with lower gas prices than when he started, somehow I didn't feel real good about that either.
 
2009-02-24 02:53:47 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Failmitter: Press secretary Robert Gibbs was reduced to stammering incoherence when he was asked today about the Congressional Democrats' utter lack of fiscal sanity, Obama breaking pledge to end earmarks. American sheeple? Meh, whatever

1) Obama never made a pledge to end earmarks, McCain did.




Thanks for Playing.
(new Earmark Goodness
 
2009-02-24 02:53:52 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: I am sure there will be pork in the stimulus bill,


How do you know?

GoldSpider: ilambiquated: How stupid can you be? They just passed the biggest tax cut in history. Time to think up some new lies.

So then we're back to borrow and spend? Whoopie! Change we can REALLY believe in!


No serious economist can deny the need for a massive stimulus right now.
 
2009-02-24 02:54:35 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama says he will cut the deficit in half. This days after increasing it by approximately 50%. Fiscal sanity? How about we just get a consistent message?


I say I'm going to go to the gym (in 26 minutes) at least 50% of the days in the year.

I do not go to the gym for a week.

Does this mean I'm doomed from meeting my goal?
 
2009-02-24 02:54:40 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Total Farkers are too full of partisanship



img145.imageshack.us
 
2009-02-24 02:56:08 PM  
Here's a little baby talk I just posted elsewhere that may be simple enough for you to understand:

One way to think of economic theory is like imaging an oscilloscope.

You have a CRT and a bunch of knobs so you can directly control the electron gun. You can make all kinds of patterns -- sawtooth waves, square wave sine waves, ellipses various floral patterns etc.

But you can't always get from one pattern to another by just twisting one knob. You have to twist several, and you have to do it in sync.

The narratives you hear on talk radio are always about twisting one knob. They never work -- not because they are wrong, but because they aren't enough.
 
2009-02-24 02:56:14 PM  
rohar: And bush left office with lower gas prices than when he started, somehow I didn't feel real good about that either.

No, he didn't.

From the Department of Labor, Gasoline Unleaded Regular, by month/year
(^)

January of 2001: $1.472
January of 2009: $1.787
 
2009-02-24 02:56:19 PM  

ilambiquated: I suppose you don't realize that cutting the deficit by half after raising it by 50% is a net reduction of 25%.


The way he was talking about what he 'inherited' I took it to mean that he wanted to half the pre-existing deficit.
 
2009-02-24 02:57:10 PM  

Corvus: "I have to ask Obama about his specific stance on the subject" is "stammering incoherence"?


According to people that think PowerLine is something better than dogshiat, yes.
 
2009-02-24 02:57:49 PM  

Weaver95: As far as i'm concerned, the Republicans lost the right to complain about bloated spending bills 20 years ago.


And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who voted for Palin/McCain lost the right to complain about anything Obama does, because they are retarded.
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report