Democrats turn against Barack Obama over spending plans

[Mountain Man]

As senior members of his economic team have been grilled by Congressional committees about the $3.6 trillion (£2.5 trillion) budget unveiled last week, a meeting of 14 Democrats was convened by Evan Bayh, senator for Indiana, to discuss how the president be might reined in.

. . .

The nascent conservative Democrat caucus could spell big trouble for Mr Obama as he tries to force through not only the budget but other spending plans in the coming months. The budget requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, but other bills require a "super-majority"of 60.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4940559/Democrats-turn-against-Barack-Obama-over-spending-plans.html
Very interesting.

[JusticeMachine]

As senior members of his economic team have been grilled by Congressional committees about the $3.6 trillion (£2.5 trillion) budget unveiled last week, a meeting of 14 Democrats was convened by Evan Bayh, senator for Indiana, to discuss how the president be might reined in.

. . .

The nascent conservative Democrat caucus could spell big trouble for Mr Obama as he tries to force through not only the budget but other spending plans in the coming months. The budget requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, but other bills require a "super-majority"of 60.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4940559/Democrats-turn-against-Barack-Obama-over-spending-plans.html
Very interesting.

The real problem is that the fiscally responsible Democrates are in the minority of the party. The rest will tow the line and we are still out of luck. (I was going to say scr*wed, but I didn't know if I would get edited.)

[Darth Executor]

Fiscally responsible politicians are a minority in general. If the Republican party was much better they wouldn't be in their current position.

[Mountain Man]

The real problem is that the fiscally responsible Democrates are in the minority of the party. The rest will tow the line and we are still out of luck.
Yes, but with Republicans almost unanimously voting against Obama, these 14 Democrats could be enough to tip the balance.

(I was going to say scr*wed, but I didn't know if I would get edited.)
"Screwed" is acceptable, but just a heads up, if it wasn't you'd still have been moderated for the above because even veiled profanity is considered a breach of tWeb rules.

[Little Shepherd]

Wow, when even Congressional Democrats are complaining about you spending too much, you know you've gone off the deep end! :shocked:

[Ex Nihilo]

Blue Dog Democrats may see their day after all!

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what really sucks. That the conservatives are so unbelievably out of touch with reality, that they can't offer a reasonable minority opinion, other than the Wagstaff Doctrine.

I'm glad some of the Democrats are taking that roll. Obama's budget is huge and it doesn't seem to be making anything a priority, it is just broad spending hikes everywhere. Obama's budget notes nearly a tripling of the national debt in 10 or 12 years. That can't be allowed.

That said, I think it is utterly pathetic that conservatives would seem to use this as fuel to put on the fire, when in fact, it shows that the Democrats aren't this single group that can be whipped into loyalty like the Republicans were under the whip of DeLay. The Republicans never saw a deficit spending package they couldn't vote "yes" on, until the Democrats took control.

It is nice to see portions of the Democrat party note that there is an issue with the budget, when they, in fact, are in power.

[Mountain Man]

Obama's budget is huge and it doesn't seem to be making anything a priority, it is just broad spending hikes everywhere. Obama's budget notes nearly a tripling of the national debt in 10 or 12 years. That can't be allowed.
Not only that, Obama is -- again! -- breaking his campaign promise to veto any bill that contained earmarks.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not only that, Obama is -- again! -- breaking his campaign promise to veto any bill that contained earmarks.
It's $5 billion of a $400 billion bill, and those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 different job creating projects.

Pissing on about $5 billion when you are staring into an abyss of next year being a $1 trillion deficit is petty and stupid.

[shadowmaster]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.This from the TWEB troll. :smile:

[shadowmaster]

Wash your mouth out, libby.

[Mountain Man]

It's $5 billion of a $400 billion bill, and those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 different job creating projects.
No, those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 pet projects slipped into the bill by senators and congressmen in order to keep their constituents happy. And regardless, Obama promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks, so either he's flip-flopped or he made a promise he never intended to keep.

[Mountain Man]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.
Maybe he's taking this...

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 pet projects slipped into the bill by senators and congressmen in order to keep their constituents happy. And regardless, Obama promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks, so either he's flip-flopped or he made a promise he never intended to keep.You mean keep their constituents employed.

I don't think you realize how many civil infrastructure jobs require federal money for them to get off the ground. The answer is "most of them".

[shadowmaster]

The shadowmaster thinks that you do not realize how well we did without all those "civil infrastructure jobs'.

[Mountain Man]

You mean keep their constituents employed.
Yeah, I'm sure things like the National Endowment of the Arts is really going to do a lot to keep people employed. :ahem:

But you are, of course, missing the point:

Obama promised no earmarks. He has failed to uphold that promise.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, I'm sure things like the National Endowment of the Arts is really going to do a lot to keep people employed. :ahem:Feel free to list every one of the 9000 earmarks that you think is a waste.


But you are, of course, missing the point:

Obama promised no earmarks. He has failed to uphold that promise.I don't care about earmarks. It is a very minor and relatively insignificant issue. Obama most certainly increased the budgets of every department in his 2010 budget by $5 billion each.

McCain made a huge deal about earmarks during the 2008 campaign. I thought it was an absolute joke, seeing that we are pumping approximately 4 times the earmark money into a missile defense shield that is doomed from the get go. Speak about a waste of money. Earmarks mean jobs. One person's "pork" is another person's "local job package".

[Mountain Man]

I don't care about earmarks. It is a very minor and relatively insignificant issue.
Yes, because having a president who can't be taken at his word is an insignificant issue. And now we come full circle to the topic of this thread: even Obama's own party is starting turn against him because of his fiscal irresponsibility.

[shadowmaster]

Yes, because having a president who can't be taken at his word is an insignificant issue. And now we come full circle to the topic of this thread: even Obama's own party is starting turn against him because of his fiscal irresponsibility.

But Jimmy will be one of the last.

Rabid uber-liberals are like that.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, because having a president who can't be taken at his word is an insignificant issue.This is a mountain out of a molehill. Our stock market has lost well over $1 trillion and you want to complain about $5 billion in earmarks. Obama said he'd get troops out of Iraq, that is under way. Obama said he'd close Guantanamo, that is underway. Obama said he'd work on re-establishing foreign policy relations. That is underway.

The big things that matter, Obama is making a serious effort to commit to. Earmarks... gosh, how incredibly inane to concentrate on such an insignificant detail.


And now we come full circle to the topic of this thread: even Obama's own party is starting turn against him because of his fiscal irresponsibility."Turn against him" would be very strong words that actually don't apply. There are members in the Party that are questioning the ammounts, of which I agree with them. They aren't "turning" on Obama. They are being reasonable and asking questions.

I understand how unusual this may look for a conservative seeing that the Republicans between 2001 and 2008 barely ever disagreed with Bush on anything, including the approval of a ton of deficit spending.

[Bartholomew]

Obama promised no earmarks. He has failed to uphold that promise.

I know he promised in his first presidential debate that:

"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."

I'm not sure how that equates to "no earmarks". Perhaps you have another quotation in mind?

Not that it matters much. As far as I can tell, every President since FDR, minus Carter, has promised earmark reform. The reality is that earmarks are entrenched in our political system and are not going anywhere.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know he promised in his first presidential debate that:

"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."

I'm not sure how that equates to "no earmarks". Perhaps you have another quotation in mind?

Not that it matters much. As far as I can tell, every President since FDR, minus Carter, has promised earmark reform. The reality is that earmarks are entrenched in our political system and are not going anywhere.
Well, in the way government is today, almost makes them assured of happening. Congress can't pass individual spending bills anymore. The partisan rancor makes it necessary to have these huge omnibus bills which makes it impossible to go line-by-line to investigate what is actually in there.

If our politicians could grow up a little, maybe it'd be possible to not require these omnibus bills and actually have many spending bills that are smaller, more manageable and certainly easier to investigate.

[Bartholomew]

The partisan rancor makes it necessary to have these huge omnibus bills which makes it impossible to go line-by-line to investigate what is actually in there.

What makes it impossible to go line-by-line now? Why is size an insurmountable obstacle? These bills are formatted for electronic search. If time is the issue, Obama could use the veto threat to give people and politicians the necessary days or weeks to go line-by-line.


If our politicians could grow up a little, maybe it'd be possible to not require these omnibus bills and actually have many spending bills that are smaller, more manageable and certainly easier to investigate.

How would they grow up? Would they even want to?

I contend that politicians act the way they do because they have every incentive to do so, not because they are immature. Politicians do whatever it takes to maintain power and be reelected. It is a fault of our political system that cannot be corrected save for shrinking government and thus minimizing the issue (which itself is unlikely given these same incentives).

[Mountain Man]

I know he promised in his first presidential debate that:

"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."

I'm not sure how that equates to "no earmarks". Perhaps you have another quotation in mind?
Yes:

January 6, 2009

"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," Obama told reporters after a meeting with his economic advisers.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/
He has, of course, completely ignored this promise and now he's contradicted himself by saying that earmarks aren't so bad after all:

March 11, 2009

The president said some earmarks are legitimate. “Done right,” he said, “earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/11/business/econwatch/entry4859377.shtml
So he's gone from an outright elimination of earmarks to opposing the outright elimination of earmarks. Can we really trust a president whose policies at any given moment are based on expediency and which way the wind happens to be blowing?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mountain Man, you should change your name to Don Quixote... with all this windmill tilting you are doing.

Earmarks! Earmarks! Earmarks!

[shadowmaster]

Mountain Man, you should change your name to Don Quixote... with all this windmill tilting you are doing.

Earmarks! Earmarks! Earmarks!

:doh:

[Mountain Man]

By the way, that whizzing sound you hear is the point going over Jimmy's head.

[shadowmaster]

:thumb:

[Darth Executor]

Do not criticize Obama unless it's on a point Jimmy Higgins deems important enough.

[shadowmaster]

Like nuking the Russians.

[Jimmy Higgins]

By the way, that whizzing sound you hear is the point going over Jimmy's head.What sound could such a small and insignificant point make? You are tilting at windmills over the earmarks and this promise. The big promises are being worked on as we speak, being put into action.

You wouldn't have trusted Obama if he did fulfill his earmark idea in the first year. So why are you pretending that this is affecting your opinion of him?

[Darth Executor]

What sound could such a small and insignificant point make? You are tilting at windmills over the earmarks and this promise. The big promises are being worked on as we speak, being put into action.

You wouldn't have trusted Obama if he did fulfill his earmark idea in the first year. So why are you pretending that this is affecting your opinion of him?


I love it how Jimmy is coming up with excuses to get people to stop criticizing Herr Obama. Dissent is no longer patriotic.

[shadowmaster]

I love it how Jimmy is coming up with excuses to get people to stop criticizing Herr Obama. Dissent is no longer patriotic.

And now we have:

Obama, Geithner Receive Failing Grades From Economists in Survey
In stark contrast with Obama's popularity with the public, a majority of the 49 economists polled by the Wall Street Journal are dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/11/obama-geithner-receive-failing-grades-latest-survey/

Wonder how Jimmy will spin that one.

[Mountain Man]

What sound could such a small and insignificant point make?
Because an untrustworthy president is an insignificant issue.

The big promises are being worked on as we speak, being put into action.
Campaign-like rhetoric without substance? Gee, you're starting to sound just like your idol.

You wouldn't have trusted Obama if he did fulfill his earmark idea in the first year. So why are you pretending that this is affecting your opinion of him?
Well now, since you've obviously developed the powers of clairvoyance, how about doing something useful and telling me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? :ahem:

Here's the facts, bub: the shine is coming off the Messiah as more and more people are starting to recognize who he really is.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because an untrustworthy president is an insignificant issue.Okay, follows up on the big things, possibly following up on a smaller thing. These earmarks are old pre-Obama business. Whether he follows up on it for the next spending bill will be the big teller.


Campaign-like rhetoric without substance? Gee, you're starting to sound just like your idol."Campaign-like," I love it. When you say "Campaign-like", that means it wasn't even a "Campaign promise".


Well now, since you've obviously developed the powers of clairvoyance, how about doing something useful and telling me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? :ahem:Oh please, don't insult me. You never liked Obama, you never will like Obama. You are extremely partisan and can't get over that.


Here's the facts, bub: the shine is coming off the Messiah as more and more people are starting to recognize who he really is.He never was the Messiah... that is your partisan boss's (Limbaugh/Hannity) take on Obama. Not a liberal or progressive's take on him. Closing Guantanamo, trying to get closure with the detainees there... that is a Campaign Promise that he kept that I think means a ton more than his "campaign-like" earmark deal... of which, he hasn't been in office long enough to even see whether he pulls that one through in the next spending bill which will be all hs own.

[Mountain Man]

Does anybody else feel the room spinning? Oh, wait, that's just Jimmy's rhetoric. :lol:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anybody else feel the room spinning? Oh, wait, that's just Jimmy's rhetoric. :lol:
I'll take that as you can't actually respond constructively to my comments, which were quite simple:

- Obama followed up on big campaign promises
- the earmark deal wasn't even a campaign promise
- you've never liked Obama
- noted the mischaracterization you've made of Obama with reference to liberals

Any of these points not true? No... hence why you needed to duck and derail the conversation.

[Mountain Man]

I'll take that as you can't actually respond constructively to my comments, which were quite simple:

- Obama followed up on big campaign promises
And how convenient it must be for you that one of the promises he blatantly broke is excluded from the category of "big promises". :ahem:

- the earmark deal wasn't even a campaign promise
You're right, it wasn't. It was a promise he made after he was elected. Like that changes anything.

- you've never liked Obama
Incorrect. I liked him at first, or at least I liked who he was as the media portrayed him (which was a sham), but the more I learned about him the less I liked him. But on this issue, I would have at least respected him if he kept his promise and vetoed the earmark-laden spending bills. That at least would have shown that he was somewhat serious about his promise for fiscal responsibility. Instead he has proven himself to be by far the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history. Does that count as one promise broken, or two? Oh, that's right, those promises weren't "big" enough, so they don't count. :doh:

- noted the mischaracterization you've made of Obama with reference to liberals
If you don't think Obamania is real then you've had your head in the ground. Or you're being willfully ignorant.

Any of these points not true? No... hence why you needed to duck and derail the conversation.
You are a shameless hypocrite. The OP has an article indicating that the tide is starting to turn against Obama in the Democratic party in a way that could upset his future power-grab agenda, and you're the one who's been trying to derail this thread from the start.

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how convenient it must be for you that one of the promises he blatantly broke is excluded from the category of "big promises". :ahem:You forgot the word "campaign" in the big promises quote.

You're right, it wasn't. It was a promise he made after he was elected. Like that changes anything.


Incorrect. I liked him at first, or at least I liked who he was as the media portrayed him (which was a sham), but the more I learned about him the less I liked him. But on this issue, I would have at least respected him if he kept his promise and vetoed the earmark-laden spending bills.Sure you would have.

That at least would have shown that he was somewhat serious about his promise for fiscal responsibility. Instead he has proven himself to be by far the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history. Does that count as one promise broken, or two? Oh, that's right, those promises weren't "big" enough, so they don't count. :doh:What is inane is to be holding $5 billion in spending for jobs over his head as not being fiscally responsible. Obama's fiscal issues point primarily to his 2010 budget proposal. That is the big thing. You continuing to focus on some small fish is just partisan hackery.


If you don't think Obamania is real then you've had your head in the ground. Or you're being willfully ignorant.A ton of Obama support was coming from Bush exhaustion. We needed to nominate someone who could get broad support... and he did. Managed to make Montana competitive, won Indiana and North Carolina. That is what a bunch of the excitement was. It was almost certain, once the Palin mania fell off the scope, that Obama was going to win and win by a bunch.


You are a shameless hypocrite.That would require you to actually demonstrate what I was being hypocritical about.

The OP has an article indicating that the tide is starting to turn against Obama in the Democratic party in a way that could upset his future power-grab agenda, and you're the one who's been trying to derail this thread from the start.I'm not derailing anything. My first reply noted that some of the Democrats were playing the opposition and balancing role that the Republicans are supposed to be taking... that you were really stretching the truth by saying the party was turning on him.

Your reply to me was the derail on the earmarks. I didn't bring earmarks up. You, the person who posted OP did. So you can buzz off about me derailing a thread that you actually derailed yourself.

Pondering Powerpuff Girl reference

Mountain Man: It was me... it was me... it was me

[Mountain Man]

You forgot the word "campaign" in the big promises quote.
So, what, only promises made during the campaign count as legitimate promises?

Sure you would have.
Are you calling me a liar?

What is inane is to be holding $5 billion in spending for jobs over his head as not being fiscally responsible.
Uh, yeah, Jimmy Spinnin', you kinda forgot that little ol' $1 trillion "stimulus" bill he recently signed. :ahem:

And I like how you apparently think that $5 billion is a trivial amount of money. What's up with that?

Obama's fiscal issues point primarily to his 2010 budget proposal.
And the way his own party is starting to respond, he may be thankfully reigned in well before that. :thumb:

I didn't bring earmarks up. You, the person who posted OP did.
If you care to review my post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2605632&postcount=8), I was agreeing with you and only mentioned his broken promise concerning earmarks as another reason why Obama is starting to fall out of favor with his fellow Democrats. You're the who picked up that ball and have been trying to run with it through the rest of this thread, dodging and spinning the whole way.

So stick that hypocrisy in your pipe and smoke it. :smile:

[Pilgrim]

T
"Turn against him" would be very strong words that actually don't apply. There are members in the Party that are questioning the ammounts, of which I agree with them. They aren't "turning" on Obama. They are being reasonable and asking questions.


Something Republicans were unable to do when they were goosestepping into their own record deficits not even a year ago behind the Rovian leadership. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "it all depends on who's bull is getting gored." Our guy gets a pass and their guy gets a stoning no matter what the circumstance or issue.

[Mountain Man]

Bush was a long way from being fiscally conservative, but Obama's policies make Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge.

[Pilgrim]

Yes I know, no true scotsman and all that.

[Mountain Man]

:huh: