Obama has proposed his first budget.

[Hear Again]

oh btw - it's because there is no Wal-Mart in Iraq. Food & Supplies are not all they need. They do buy certain accessories/equipments that are not covered by US Military such as IPOD, laptop, and even gloves & body armors.

We've spent enough money in Iraq. It's time to think about our own country now.

 

[Hear Again]

depends on who's getting rich from it. typical politician....

That may be true, but at least Obama is addressing the problem which is more than I can say for former President Bush.

 

[Hear Again]

yes we did. makes you wonder why Patriot Acts was renewed.... to find dirt on politicians like Elliot Spitzer who won't play ball with "them"? Yes you may put this under Conspiracy Theory file.

The Patriot Act didn't prevent former President Bush from spending $12 billion/month in Iraq. If it weren't for the 2008 election and Bush's defeat, we'd still be spending that amount right now.

 

[Hear Again]

People need to stop pinning this mess on Bush. If the President of United States can singlehandedly control the worldwide economy - wow... :-o

If we're going to blame the poor state of the economy on Clinton, why don't we blame Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan as well?

 

[Jiro]

The Patriot Act didn't prevent former President Bush from spending $12 billion/month in Iraq. If it weren't for the 2008 election and Bush's defeat, we'd still be spending that amount right now.

nono - What I meant is that Patriot Acts enabled Bush to spend more because by wiretapping does not need to be authorized... which means the investigators are given blanket & broad authorization to investigate on anybody. During the course of broad investigation - they came across some dirts on politicians especially powerful Democrats.. like Elliot Spitzer.

damn... sucks to see a good man going down....

 

[Jiro]

If we're going to blame the poor state of the economy on Clinton, why don't we blame Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan as well?

sure but then... Reagan was put in a good light by making this country powerful and safe as its later effect of his policy. I don't doubt that our grown-up children will feel the same from Bush's aggressive national security policy... even though it partially-caused our economy to tank.

we'll see.... we'll see.....

 

[Hear Again]

sure but then... Reagan was put in a good light by making this country powerful and safe as its later effect of his policy. I don't doubt that our grown-up children will feel the same from Bush's aggressive national security policy... even though it partially-caused our economy to tank.

we'll see.... we'll see.....

Reaganomics?

 

[Jiro]

Reaganomics?

I'm not economic expert so I have no comment on it regarding economic. I'm just referring to each President's national security policy and the justification of cost for it.

 

[ASLGAL]

If it weren't for the 2008 election and Bush's defeat

President Bush had served two terms and did not run in 2008

and something that escapes folks...the Democrats have controlled both houses of congress since 2006.

 

[Hear Again]

damn... sucks to see a good man going down....

Bush only has himself to blame. He was the one who wanted to start the War in Iraq and never did anything to address the poor state of the economy.

 

[Hear Again]

and something that escapes folks...the Democrats have controlled both houses of congress since 2006.

...and the President has the power of veto.

 

[Jiro]

...and the President has the power of veto.

and the Congress has power to override the veto.

 

[sequoias]

and Jiro has the authority to put "You Domestic Dissent" stamped all over the bills.

 

[Hear Again]

and Jiro has the authority to put "You Domestic Dissent" stamped all over the bills.

 

[Jiro]

here we go -

Moderates uneasy with Obama plan

Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are.

A group of 14 Senate Democrats and one independent huddled behind closed doors on Tuesday, discussing how centrists in that chamber can assert more leverage on the major policy debates that will dominate this Congress.

Afterward, some in attendance made plain that they are getting jitters over the cost and expansive reach of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal.

Asked when he’d reach his breaking point, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, said: “Right now. I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.”

Another attendee, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), said she expected the newly formed caucus to shape Obama’s budget proposal as it moves through Congress.

“We want to give the president a chance, but our concern is going to be on the budget, looking forward,” Landrieu said. She added that she agrees with Obama that there needs to be “fundamental change” in fiscal policy, but she said “we do have to keep our eye on the long term, on intermediate and long-term fiscal responsibility.”

Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October.

As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.”

“The American people and businesses are tightening their belts,” Bayh added. “I think we need to show that the government can economize as well.”

The anxiety that moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are feeling about Obama’s agenda is potentially significant. In the House, moderate Democrats have much less leverage to slow action on a majority that under Speaker Nancy Pelosi is eager to embrace the boldest and most expensive parts in the agenda.

In the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to end debate, a few reluctant Democrats can cause big problems for Obama — a reverse of the dynamic that last month gave a few ready-to-bargain Republicans enormous clout in passing a major stimulus package.

It was that package, combined with at least $700 billion in bailouts to the financial sector, combined with the recently unveiled budget, that has some Democrats at the breaking point — even as most say they basically agree with Obama that massive intervention is needed to help a sick economy.

If the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans — as Bayh said they are eager to do — they will negate the White House’s ability to portray opposition to Obama’s spending as partisan obstructionism.



Traditionally, senators are much more independent than House members, and much less likely to organize in caucuses of like-minded colleagues. But moderate Democratic senators seem intent on shaking up the culture of the upper chamber.

“If we’re going to get 60, we have to have the pragmatists, the moderates in the Senate, in the Democratic caucus working together and reaching out to those on the other side, of like minds,” Bayh said. “And this group would facilitate that process.”

Ken Baer, communications director for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, said the budget overview is the administration’s strategy for “addressing big challenges, both fiscal and economic, that have been overlooked for some time now. We look forward to working with congresspeople from across the political spectrum on how to tackle these challenges.”

In his budget request, Obama calls for a massive restructuring of federal priorities, including a $634 billion fund to overhaul the country’s health care system. While the deficit would swell in the near term, the president has promised to cut it in half by the end of his first term.

To do that, Obama has proposed an array of tax hikes that have been greeted with a chilly reception from Republicans and moderate Democrats. Under Obama’s plan, most of the tax increases would be delayed until 2011, when the tax cuts enacted under Bush would expire, increasing taxes on families making more than $250,000 from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. While Obama would attempt to save small businesses on their tax payments, he would target an array of companies for hikes, like oil and gas firms, companies that do businesses overseas, and hedge funds and other private equity firms.

“I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy,” said Nelson, the conservative Nebraska Democrat. “On the one hand, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you’re trying to keep money from going into taxpayers’ pockets. It’s very difficult to make that logic work.”

Nelson also highlighted concerns with changes in agriculture payments that are being proposed, as well as the Obama administration’s assumption that it would receive revenue from a cap-and-trade bill to curb global warming, even though enacting such a plan would be daunting.

A senior administration official, who asked for anonymity, said the White House would be looking for additional cuts in the budget and would eventually get the debt under control. But the official said the budget was large in size and scope in order to respond to the swooning economy that Obama inherited.

“We inherited a huge, huge problem: unbelievable mismanagement,” the official said.

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is also part of the moderate Democratic group, agreed with that sentiment. But she added that she hadn’t “scrubbed” Obama’s proposed budget yet and that “we need to be careful not to use the economic crisis to get into bad habits.”

Similarly, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said he wants to ensure that new spending in Obama’s budget remains funded for only one year. “If it’s coming and staying, then I have a problem,” Begich said just before he headed off to the meeting with the moderate Democrats.

Other Democrats in that group include Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, and Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas, as well as Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

“At what point of time do you say enough is enough?” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), a centrist who is not part of the group. “I don’t know where that is at this point.”

even Democrats have problem with Obama's stimulus plan...

 

[Reba]

...even Democrats have problem with Obama's stimulus plan...

Yep.

 

[Jiro]

Critics question Obama's pledge to end 'pork'

(CNN) -- As a spending bill loaded with pork makes its way through Congress, President Obama is getting pushback from members of his own party who are questioning his vow to end wasteful spending.

The president on Wednesday pledged turn tide on an "era of fiscal irresponsibility," reiterating his campaign promise that the days of "pork ... as a strategy" are over.

And in a prime-time address before a joint session of Congress, Obama last week praised the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law, telling the nation, "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities."

But some in the audience found that hard to swallow.

"There was just a roar of laughter -- because there were earmarks," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri.

Earmarks, sometimes called "pork," are unrelated pet projects that members of Congress insert in spending bills. VideoWatch more on the earmarks in the bill »

The scoffing continues as the president hammers away at reducing wasteful spending and saving taxpayers money while lawmakers on Capitol Hill load up a spending bill with more than 8,000 earmarks totaling nearly $8 billion.

The legislation in question is a $410 billion omnibus bill that would keep the federal government running through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September 2009.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that monitors government spending, the bill includes:

* Nearly $1.8 million for pig odor research in Iowa

* $950,000 for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

* $143,000 for a natural history museum in Las Vegas

* $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii

About 60 percent of the earmarks are from Democrats, and about 40 percent are from Republicans, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Ryan Alexander, the president of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, pointed out that not all earmarks are bad.

"They're not always good or bad. What's bad is the process. We don't know why certain projects get earmark funds and why other projects don't. Some of them may be good. But that could be just as well by accident as it is by design, because we have no idea why these projects are funded and why other projects aren't," he said.

Earlier this week, 14 Democratic senators met to talk about their concerns with the spending. On Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold called on Obama to veto the bill. VideoWatch Feingold talk about a 'teary-eyed' defense of earmarks »

"But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning," Bayh wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial published Wednesday.

Democrats blocked amendments by Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that would have narrowed the spending on earmarks.

"So much for the promise of change. This may be -- in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain about the earmark pork barrel corruption that this system has bred, this may be probably the worst, probably the worst," McCain said Tuesday.

The spending bill made it through the House last week. A vote in the Senate could come as early as Thursday, but it's unclear if there are the 60 votes necessary to sent it to the floor since some Democrats aren't supporting it.

Obama is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

But Democrats speaking out against the pork could just be flexing their muscles, said CNN contributor Roland Martin.

"I would love to see these same Democrats have the courage to actually stand up, look their fellow senators in the eye, Democrats and Republicans, and say, OK, let's get rid of your particular project," he said.

"What often happens in Congress is, they complain in terms of the general ... What I am saying is, call them out. Put it on the table," he said.

Those defending the earmarks say they make up just a small portion -- less than 1 percent -- of the overall bill.

The White House says this bill is just last year's unfinished business -- and next time, it will be different.

"We'll change the rules going forward," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday when asked about the legislation.

Obama presented his budget summary to Congress last week, but the full details of his 2010 budget won't be available until April.

to Democrats

 

[jillio]

Those defending the earmarks say they make up just a small portion -- less than 1 percent -- of the overall bill.

The White House says this bill is just last year's unfinished business -- and next time, it will be different.


Also from the above article. Again, we are only less than 90 days into correcting a years long problem. And since McCain's statements were highlighted, one might also keep in mind that it is McCain's party that is, in large part, responsible for those problems.

 

[Jiro]

Those defending the earmarks say they make up just a small portion -- less than 1 percent -- of the overall bill.

The White House says this bill is just last year's unfinished business -- and next time, it will be different.


Also from the above article. Again, we are only less than 90 days into corrected a years long problem.

small portion or not - how about none? They're all bitching and whining, didyareadit? "Democrats blocked amendments by Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that would have narrowed the spending on earmarks."

 

[jillio]

small portion or not - how about none? They're all bitching and whining, didyareadit? "Democrats blocked amendments by Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that would have narrowed the spending on earmarks."

1% is a reduction. Again, this is a problem that has been created over years. Obama's adminsitration is less than 90 days into their efforts to correct it. And you might want to keep in mind that McCain and Coburn's party is in large part, responsible for the problems that now need to be corrected.

There is no magic wand and fairy dust. The solution is systematic and planned with the big picture foremost in mind. It took years to create the problem. It cannot be corrected overnight.