Agreed Mark. But not only that, they should also be required to explain how each line item will help stimulate the economy. Somewhere along the line this thing morphed from stimulating an economy to simply being what someone thinks is a worthy expense. Those things that are important and worthy, but not directly related to stimulating the economy, should be going into the regular budget. Those things that are clearly pet projects should be out of there entirely. Screw Chuck Schumer and his idea that the people don't care about these line items. They don't belong there, they add up, and if the media pointing this out is strangling Obama then Obama needs to do a better job of cleaning up the bill. Isn't this what we all bitched about with Bush - never once vetoing a spending bill, or even utilizing a line item veto.
Regarding Schumer's comment; I pay a lot of taxes. In the context of $800B it's not even noticable, but to me it's a lot of money that I could have spent on my family, my home, donations.. whatever. When I heard Schumer make that comment I couldn't help but think my entire tax contribution getting thrown out the window for some pet project and Schumer thinks I don't care about that. That comment really pissed me off (if you couldn't tell..). I think it speaks volumes with the mentality of today's politicians. I also noticed that truthout has nothing to say about the 'chattering class'. On Feb 15, 3:10 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Any representative (senate or house) that would sign off on a bill as > far reaching and expensive as this without reading and understanding > EVERY word and explaining it to his constituancy should be shot. > > On Feb 15, 10:54 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > truthout wrote "The Republicans and their right-wing media allies are > > doing whatever they can to strangle the Obama phenomenon in its > > cradle" > > > What the Republicans and most of the predominantly left-wing media are > > doing is reporting on a spending bill and some very questionable > > actions by your guy. Your problem is you don't like it when the media > > doesn't fawn over Obama. So it’s either kissing his ass or you're > > strangling 'the phenomenon'. This is all opinion, so it can't be > > considered a lie - let's just call it disingenuous. You were fine when > > the media was destroying the Bush administration, but now that it's > > Obama you want the game to change. Now that it's Obama, truthout is > > sounding like Thumper... "If you can’t say something nice, don’t say > > nuthin’ at all". > > > On Feb 15, 4:06 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > really please post an example of when truth out was incorrect or > > > untruthful in their reporting . > > > > On Feb 14, 2:07 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The "Obama phenomenon"? Is that what they're calling it now? > > > > > If calling a spade a spade is 'strangling the Obama phenomenon', then > > > > so be it. A 'stimulus' package that is nothing more than big > > > > government spending more money it doesn't have is not a phenomenon. > > > > What Obama wants to do with the Census is politically dangerous and is > > > > not a phenomenon (at least not a positive one). Appointing or > > > > nominating lobbyists and tax cheats is not a phenomenon. Closing Gitmo > > > > w/o a plan is a political stunt, it's not a phenomenon. > > > > > Funny how you've copied this over from 'truthout' when in fact, > > > > getting the truth out is exactly what they don't want. What they want > > > > are good little lemmings to line up behind Obama, no matter how flawed > > > > a plan he proposes, and if someone objects -- well then they are > > > > accused of 'strangling the Obama phenomenon'. > > > > > On Feb 14, 1:20 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Little Mike is a Donkey... It is true because it is in print... If > > > > > Little Mike denies being a Donkey, it must be because he has nothing > > > > > intelligent to say... > > > > > > This is the logic you seek to employ... Minewhile what about Obama's > > > > > politicizing the Census??? > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The GOP's Jihad on Obamahttp://www.truthout.org/021209J > > > > > > Robert Parry, Consortium News: "The Republicans and their right-wing > > > > > > media allies are doing whatever they can to strangle the Obama > > > > > > phenomenon in its cradle; the mainstream media pundits are stressing > > > > > > the negative so they don't get called 'in the tank for Obama'; and > > > > > > the > > > > > > Democrats are shying away from holding the Bush-Cheney > > > > > > administration > > > > > > accountable for its crimes. None of these developments is > > > > > > particularly > > > > > > surprising. Indeed, they track closely to the political-media > > > > > > pattern > > > > > > that took shape the last time a young Democrat won the White House, > > > > > > when Bill Clinton became President in 1993."- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
