Quote of the Day
From Obama’s press conference:
After many weeks of debate and discussion, the plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenge we face right now. It is a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. It contains input, ideas, and compromises from both Democrats and Republicans. It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.
Vent your spleen in the comments.
At that point, the journalists attending the press conference all burst into laughter shaming Obama for lying to them. Right? Right?
Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:47 pmWell, since the Senate markup is secret, that’s hard to check. But the “members of both parties” term is a nice turn — surely everything that was objectionable to BOTH parties is long gone. Probably never there. Now, stuff that’s only objectionable to the minority is probably fairly common.
It’s a spoils bill masquerading as an emergency. Some of the provisions are so broad (e.g. $30 billion for roads) that the lack of earmarks isn’t a great help. All that means is the Dept of Transportation has broad discretion instead of some Congressional Committee. BFD.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:48 pmBarack Obama, 2/5/08
Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:54 pmThe ability to lie with a straight face is a critical skill for a politician. We saw it often from Obama during the campaign. It’s no surprise that he hasn’t given it up since his inauguration.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:07 amAnd there is a start on nationalized medicine…
Ken in Camarillo (aa2192) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:20 amI would go with the quote made during the cloture debate today, have to check who made it.
A Trillion is a terrible thing to waste.
DayTrader (ea6549) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:50 amOddities of the presser
Lib Talker Ed Schultz sitting next to Helen Thomas
DayTrader (ea6549) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:53 amSam Stein of HuffPo who asked the above the law question
How can he stand up there and lie like that?
tyree (ad0b00) — 2/10/2009 @ 2:54 amI only caught a bit, but I’m simply gobsmacked at how inarticulate and stupid he sounds. Honestly.
Peg C. (48175e) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:16 amDo not worry people he is a “good” man.
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:21 amReally? Why?
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:21 amThe word buffoon comes to mind when watching this liar speak.
It will take time, but Americans will see this imposter for what he is.
jdflorida (cb54f8) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:27 amBut you know what the fundamentalist left says…
Obama said it.
KB (5a6552) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:37 amI believe it.
That settles it.
More Quote of the day:
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:57 amDespite all of this, the plan is not perfect. No plan is. I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans. My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing too little or nothing at all will result in an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes; and confidence. That is a deficit that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe. And I refuse to let that happen. As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to put this country back to work.
2 more
“There are no earmarks.”
“My administration inherited [FROM THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IN CONTROL OF SPENDING IN CONGRESS] a deficit … and economic emergency…”
steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:04 am“My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion…” — and he intends to triple it.
But that’s okay. It’s not his money. I feel better already.
navyvet (4c272e) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:47 amYou don’t really want me to vent my spleen in the comments I don’t think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:48 amOh, right. Bush’s admin and the Republican congress were doing a-okay, is that what you’re saying Mr. Miller? Please tell me that that was not your point in 15, because that will cost you quite a bit of credibility.
Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:49 amComment by steve miller — 2/10/2009 @ 5:04 am
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:09 amShifting the blame, Steve? You can do better than that. Question: Does George Bush take any responsibility for this deficit? Yes or no.
Not taking any blame away from the Republicans in Congress, I ask those defending Obama’s “I inherited this deficit” line to answer a simple question:
Which party controlled Congress for the majority of the last century?
Then tell me how tripling a debt makes it easier to manage.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:13 amOf course he does, lovey. And Baracky is about to double it with the stroke of a pen on a scheme that the Congressional Budget Office says is going to do far more harm than good. That’s before we decide that Bush’s $700B TARP wasn’t good enough and we need a bigger, better one…news that is already being packaged for delivery.
Bush was no fiscal conservative and conservatives have long been at odds with him over fiscal policy. But not anymore, because he’s not in charge anymore. Now it’s Baracky’s house, and he wants to set it on fire because the furnace isn’t working and he figures we really need the heat.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:21 amWhat’s not to like? Politics will be criminalized and the census will be politicized.
Of course criminalized means just the Bush administration. Geithner and Daschle already said sorry so just drop it. Who knew the Dems were just getting warmed up with ‘Pants’ Berger?
EBJ (437cb7) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:25 amHe almost makes me long for the return of Slick Willie. Back in those happy days, only Monica Lewinsky was getting “stimulated”.
Mike Myers (674050) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:25 am#20
Even better, he inherited the deficit as a sitting Senator with his party in power of both houses of Congress. But it wasn’t his fault. The dog ate his homework or something.
And if tax cuts caused this why did O spend the entire summer promoting………a tax cut?
EBJ (437cb7) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:28 amWere the press to approach Baracky in the same way they did Bush, they would tear him to shreds for this overt lie. His own words from the DNC retreat stand in direct contrast to … drumroll … his own words.
JD (815958) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:39 amMonday, in Elkhart, IN, in response to a question posed by a woman in the crowd:
And yet…
Last friday, in Williamsburg
Mr President, are you aware we record these things?
Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (a1c284) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:39 amScott – It is a proven fact that Baracky’s words cease having any meaning or effect the moment they pass over his lips.
JD (815958) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:41 amMy puke inducing moment was when Baracky told us that only government can fix this. And, when they showed Helen Thomas. And, when he called on the asshat from HuffPo.
JD (815958) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:43 amI have people on my twitter who about ruined their pants because he’s calling on “bloggers”…
I need to get me a press pass…
Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (a1c284) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:45 amComment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:39 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:58 amWhat is the difference in the two quotes you posted in that comment? Where did he lie?
because that will cost you quite a bit of credibility.
Said by a doofus who has none.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:06 amIn the spirit of bipartisanship, lets fact check Obama.
OBAMA: “Not a single pet project,” he told the news conference. “Not a single earmark.”
THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.
For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:11 amBut hey, who’s perfect? Right?
Note that he never specifies that to be an unprecedentedly high level of transparency and accountability.
Frankly, for all his promises of T&A so far, and his track record of actually delivering, I’d prefer if he were telling us he’d bring the other type of T&A.
PCachu (e072b7) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:18 amThat’s a joke, right?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:21 amRead them again critically… The quote from friday he says, basically, that stuff like this never passes without pork/earmarks – it has to have it, so what you see is natural – while the quote from monday he denies that any pork/earmarks exist in the bill…
Which would be a lie all on its own, considering where some of this money is headed…
Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (a1c284) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:40 amThat’s a joke, right?
Comment by Rob Crawford — 2/10/2009 @ 7:21 am
My point is, what’s the difference between Regardless of what the critics say, there are no earmarks in this bill. and When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. (Applause.)? He seems to be saying the same thing in both comments. Whether he is telling the truth in both comments is another matter. My point is that the two comments agree.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:41 am“Where did he lie?”
When his lips started moving.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:42 amWhat language do you speak, lovie?
JD (815958) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:43 amEmp, I told you repeatedly to go to the fallout thread and read my comments there. You have been noticeably absent from that thread. You’re running all over the place spewing hate and misinformation while telling everyone who disagrees with you and confronts you that they are hateful and you hate them and you don’t ever want to talk to them again.
If you had any chutzpah, you would go to that thread, read it and provide cogent comments in response to mine. Until you do so, as far as I am concerned, you can sit down and shut up.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:47 amHe went to Elkhart Indiana – the home of the mobile home – the 9 mpg land yacht. Unemployment there is approaching 20%. He talked about economic stimulus and jobs. But for the last 8 years we’ve heard about nothing but the evils of SUVs, gas guzzlers, carbon foot prints, global warming, climate changiness, etc. from his party and from him. He has no intention of revitalizing their industry – none whatsoever. They’ve been trying to kill that industry.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:50 amWhatever happened to “we have nothing to fear but fear itself?” The Office of the Former President Elect is trying to be the new Roosevelt, and is reimplementing Roosevelt’s failed policies, but he’s doing with with fear, finger pointing, pork, lies, and hopey-changiness. “If we don’t act now, we may never recover”? Hope and change? Spare me. Bush was no treat, but this guy lacks even Jimmy Carter’s level of common sense, character, and political insight.
Comment by JD — 2/10/2009 @ 7:43 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:51 amWhat language do you understand, JD?
Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/10/2009 @ 7:47 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:55 amSays the Owner of the Blog; John Hitchcock. Yes sir!
If you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, isn’t having a lot of people out of work and a lot of industries operating at reduced capacity a good thing?
Diffus (cb9f4f) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:57 amYes, you’ll eat your words when you find out where that link goes, fool.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:57 amlovie – I understand several languages, just not the one you speak. It looks like English. It has English speech patterns. It even sounds like English. But it is not. Were it actually English, you would be able to see how those 2 statements directly contradict each other.
JD (c6800b) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:59 amOh, snap. Barry has the support of the AFL-CIO. There’s a surprise.
By all means, let’s look twice. With a red pen.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:02 amYou cannot argue with The Bobo – it just sits there impassively, not being able to speak nor comprehend. It is a sad thing in the end, The Bobo.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:02 amComment by John Hitchcock — 2/10/2009 @ 7:47 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:06 amYou keep pointing to the Fallout thread. A thread I cant remember visiting nor commenting on. There are almost 140 comments there. What exactly do you want me to do about the thread? Why should I read your comments there? What specific comment are you talking about? Or are you just trying to make trouble?
If you don’t want to read through the whole thing, you can start here, where I tried to guide you last night when you went on your hate bender.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:08 amWhy don’t you name the comment number. There are so many comments there. I don’t think I am inclined to read through all that.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:16 amMy comment 49 here has a link directly to the comment number there. I think it was 86 but I can’t remember exactly. I linked directly to the comment to make it easier for you.
Start reading there and read the next several comments.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:20 amComment by JD — 2/10/2009 @ 7:59 am
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:21 amI understand the English language enough. They are not two contradicting comments. It depends on how you choose to read them.
I read that last night. Glad you posted it. Yes, it was #86.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:30 amAh, now our resident lying liar is concerned with Clintonian form over substance. I did not have sex with that earmark. As Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air point out today, the Stimulus Bill is an Omnibus Earmark Bill. Even the AP calls Obama on his mendoucheousness on this one, saying by nature of the process it doesn’t have earmarks in the traditional sense, but it is larded up with pork. It even points out that is the way Obama sold it in Elkhart yesterday, talking about a local highway project that should benefit the area.
The full frontal fellating position of the Obama supporters blinds them to reality just as much as the Bent Dick Bill Believers of the 1990s.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:34 amTo me, that says you get what you work for and don’t get what you don’t work for. And redistributing wealth is antithetical to Biblical teaching.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 6:12 pm
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 8:42 amFirst of all, I wonder why you would choose to go to a thread where I did not appear in and drop a comment for me there. Expecting me to see it. I can’t be in every thread.
However, I have read the comment and I agree with it. As much as I know it is the very word of God. The Bible does say that “He that will not work, let him not eat..” It also speaks against reaping where you did not sow. If you are bringing in the Bible to make a point against Obama’s policy, you would run into a lot of problems. There are a lot of things we do as a nation that is not necessarily scriptural. For e.g., Democracy. The Bible does not teach it as God’s type of govt. In Fact, it disagrees with it. What the Bible says is “The Most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whom He wills.” Daniel4:17. It also says that “the Powers that be are ordained of God.” Whether good or bad. Romans 13:1,2,3.
Are we as a nation really following God’s pattern of government? The early church were asked to sell what they had and lay the proceeds at “the Apostles’ feet”. Acts4:34,35. “And distribution was made unto every man as he had the need.” That is called “Spreading the Wealth”. Do you still want to use the Bible to make your point?
Note, that most certainly does not say that all of the pet projects or earmarks have been stripped from the bill. Only the ones that Baracky would define as having been the most objectionable.
JD (c6800b) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:17 amAnd only those both parties found objectionable. The cash for ACORN stays in, no matter how objectionable Republicans found it!
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:50 amHere is my best Quote of the Day:
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/10/2009 @ 10:03 amIt’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt,” Obama said. “I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.”
Barack Obama.
Powerful rebuttal. We have a winner, folks!
Tu Quoque rulz! Winnah! Brilliant!
Pablo (99243e) — 2/10/2009 @ 10:06 amJeezus, Obama. Get a clue.
Offensive. Divisive. Inaccurate. Manipulative. Deceptive.
Mr. Thin-Skinned has outdone himself (as if it were possible).
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 10:33 amOh, yeah. “They doubled it, so why shouldn’t I be able to triple it!”
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/10/2009 @ 11:16 amBull – Sh*t, on its face.
And the fact that it is north of $800 billion is pretty damn objectionable all by itself.
Fourteen hundred and forty more days of damage inducement, then years and years and years of paying for it.
Chris (d098d0) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:16 pmI agree with lovey. The statements quoted by Scott Jacobs do not contradict each other.
I believe they are *both* false — true only in a Clintonian word-parsing sense, but fundamentally false and dishonest.
Patterico (fef65e) — 2/10/2009 @ 12:46 pmScott’s point was clear regarding those differences. I read an extended version of the Friday quote and it had more of that “pork 4ever” feel. I think he’s trying to circulate the word, the printed word, and the angle that despite what critics say… basically, the usual MO. He plants that, it gets circulated as fact, the obots are happy. Or more to the point:
As usual, the AP is bending it favorably.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 2:08 pmVN – When you drill down to the community level of what is in the House Bill, what is the searchable site, stimuluswatch.org or something, and take a gander at the crap what your town is going to get if you have a Democratic representative, I defy anyone to tell me that shit doesn’t meet the classic definition of pork or earmarks. I confirmed that last week with a person who retired as a very senior member of my town government last year. Years and years of low priority wish list projects were suddenly fulfilled through the bill.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 2:20 pmThat stimuluswatch site is informative, because the grab for money is breathtaking and audacious.
The government is shoveling out “free” money, so come get yours.
steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:42 pmD’rocks, it’s scary. If ever there was a time to give for the greater cause and sacrifice for later it would be now, against these pulled pork specials. I’m sure Obama would want everyone to rise above the petty need for greed. Except Dems, of course.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:47 pmThere is a single pet project in this package. it is a two part project. Part one is to transfer as much money as possible to ACORN and others to be used to find imaginary Democrats. Part two is to transfer taxpayer funds to corrupt labor unions so they will increase their contributions to the Democratic Party.
In other words, the bill is a trillion dollar campaign contribution from unwilling taxpayers to the most corrupt political organization in history, the Democratic Party.
Ken Hahn (f55e30) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:05 amKen… that’s about it. And actually, that’s the new Progressive arm of the Democratic party.
It’s like we could let this hidden agenda pass and then form some sort of We The People lawsuit.
Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/11/2009 @ 7:57 pm