FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger

[Truthmatters]

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise

Oh , I see more bending of the truth by the right

 

[mudwhistle]

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise

Oh , I see more bending of the truth by the right

Calling the kettle black.

Seems to me when Obama says he's gonna ban all earmarks, he means something else that will be presented later by ether the press secretary or the media. So who's really being misleading???

Bush Senior got nailed when he said "Read My Lips". But of course Obama cannot be nailed by his own words.....which always seems to cause a backlash. Primarily because he never means what he says.

OBAMA: But we're not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well. And that's why my recovery and reinvestment plan will have -- will set a new higher standard of accountability, transparency, and oversight.

"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."

Oh, and using a blog rather then a reliable source isn't gonna help you.

 

[jillian]

The other one highlighted by the OP is also NOT a lie.

He ssaid he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

Until he signs one after saying this it is not a lie.

Boner voted for bills with earmarks in them in the past also.

Damn near every bill he's signed has been filled with earmarks since his promise.

The numbers show that earmarks have not only not been stopped. Harry Reid's budget that was roundly rejected contained over $6 billion in earmarks.

the congress, not the president, control 'earmarks'. the president has no line-item veto. so it's all or nothing.

and, frankly, i've never seen why it was wrong for congress people to bring things back for the benefit of their districts -- as opposed to things for themselves.

 

[driveby]

I dont remember that , go get the quotes

He's said it so many times and you know it, you're just a liar....



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9E5BvaA9KU&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9E5BvaA9KU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[jillian]

You are aware that there's more than one lie in his speech, right? Or are you just gonna argue black is white on this one?

i have no doubt that in any political speech there are inaccuracies, spin and politicking. But i do think i'll wait for factcheck.org to do their thing and not anything that TPS would use.

on the other hand, let me know when he makes up WMD's.

I also think TPS's time would be better spent looking at the factcheck on the nutcase that is Michelle Bachmann.

 

[California Girl]

You are aware that there's more than one lie in his speech, right? Or are you just gonna argue black is white on this one?

i have no doubt that in any political speech there are inaccuracies, spin and politicking. But i do think i'll wait for factcheck.org to do their thing and not anything that TPS would use.

on the other hand, let me know when he makes up WMD's.

I also think TPS's time would be better spent looking at the factcheck on the nutcase that is Michelle Bachmann.

How about Media Matters little project, Political Correction? They've "fact checked" Bachman.... apparently not Obama though.

And.... if you think that Obama would not 'make up' WMD if he wanted to invade somewhere... I got some great land in Florida for ya.

 

[Truthmatters]

Obama never said he would not sign a bill with earmarks until now.

Has the congress banned them yet?


Now realize he said he would ban them, He can not write the law to do so can he?

That is for the house to write up huh?

Now he has said he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

When he does then you can call it a lie.

 

[driveby]

Obama never said he would not sign a bill with earmarks until now.

Has the congress banned them yet?


Now realize he said he would ban them, He can not write the law to do so can he?

That is for the house to write up huh?

Now he has said he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

When he does then you can call it a lie.

Then why say he would ban them?


Reminds me of Slick Willy " I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

 

[California Girl]

The other one highlighted by the OP is also NOT a lie.

He ssaid he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

Until he signs one after saying this it is not a lie.

Boner voted for bills with earmarks in them in the past also.

Of course he won't sign them.... because the GOP are refusing to send him any bills containing earmarks. That's the GOP's stance... your boy is jumping on a bandwagon. Since Boehner has already said that they will not send the President any bills that include earmarks it would be impossible for the POTUS to sign or refuse to sign off on earmarks.

Obama also voted for bills with earmarks too! See how this works, you bitch about the GOP.... and the Dems are equally as guilty.

 

[California Girl]

Obama never said he would not sign a bill with earmarks until now.

Has the congress banned them yet?


Now realize he said he would ban them, He can not write the law to do so can he?

That is for the house to write up huh?

Now he has said he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

When he does then you can call it a lie.

He's lying because he's not 'banning them'. The GOP is banning them.

 

[AmericanFirst]

FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger - Bloomberg

Too long to quote, read it all here.

But it's just what you expect. More of the same liberal "how can we fool 'em today?"

Obama promises spending cuts, but he means to do nothing of the kind. Same kind of bait and switch liberals are always guilty of.

Examples:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill's $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

In other words Obama is lying to us again. No surprise here.

Expect liberals to start spinning like hell to claim a lie is not a lie.

Same thing he said during his campaign. But in reality he and the dimwit majority pushed thru legislation like the hc law without republican input and against the will of the majority of Americans. He ois a puppet of the socialists and their agenda.

 

[Mad Scientist]

They will have to do them or they will not get re elected because one mans earmark is another mans delivery of a promise to his voters.

You don't know what an "earmark" is do you?
Earmark (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I just perused the article and there is not one lie in there.

Its all "Oh he said he would consider this or that last time" consider does not mean impliment folks.

He has been lying to us since day one, why would he stop now? If he is dimwit, he is liar!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Hes calling the republicans bluff.

They will have to pass the stuff they would have put in as earmarks as stand alone bills.

They will have to do them or they will not get re elected because one mans earmark is another mans delivery of a promise to his voters.

Same with the left idiots. They put in much more earmarks. Lets fire reid and obama next, and then have a big get rid of the commies party.

 

[ba1614]

Obama never said he would not sign a bill with earmarks until now.

Has the congress banned them yet?


Now realize he said he would ban them, He can not write the law to do so can he?

That is for the house to write up huh?

Now he has said he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

When he does then you can call it a lie.

I'm thinkin' it's safer to assume it's a lie until proven true.

 

[mudwhistle]

The other one highlighted by the OP is also NOT a lie.

He ssaid he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

Until he signs one after saying this it is not a lie.

Boner voted for bills with earmarks in them in the past also.

Damn near every bill he's signed has been filled with earmarks since his promise.

The numbers show that earmarks have not only not been stopped. Harry Reid's budget that was roundly rejected contained over $6 billion in earmarks.

the congress, not the president, control 'earmarks'. the president has no line-item veto. so it's all or nothing.

and, frankly, i've never seen why it was wrong for congress people to bring things back for the benefit of their districts -- as opposed to things for themselves.

If Obama has no control over it then why make the promise?

Btw, the Dems put a stain on the practice in the first place.

I prefer that a military spending bill contain only military spending, not Muslim outreach programs and contributions to the illegal immigrant college funds.

 

[txlonghorn]

The other one highlighted by the OP is also NOT a lie.

He ssaid he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

Until he signs one after saying this it is not a lie.

Boner voted for bills with earmarks in them in the past also.

He made this same promise WAY back during his campaign...errr... I mean innaugural speech assuring the American people that he wouldn't put up with earmarks...and that the healthcare bill would be clear of any and all...and look what happened? Not only did it have earmarks, it got pushed through before most ANYONE had a chance to read the damn thing. Including Mr. Obama.

So why should we believe him now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought his little quip about high speed trains was brilliant. Faster than air travel... and without the pat downs.... Hmmmm.... I guess he hasn't factored in the potential for this mode of transport to be a 'target' (sorry, I couldn't think of another less vitriolic word) for terrorist attacks. Ya know, like they have in Europe.

Obama - idiot.

I hope that Obama thought that was a joke. The TSA is already doing pat downs at bus stations, and have admitted to planning to move into train stations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

$4 Billion of Medicare Fraud Recovered in 2010 - CBS News

Let me know when they find that amount this year.... and next year... and the year after that... and the year after that... and the... you get the idea.

A one off serendipitous fraud recovery year does not make for sound fiscal policy. Idiot.

Thats just it, you are calling him a liar BEFORE the fact.

The ten years spoken of have NOT taken place yet BUT you here are pretending it has and that the rest of the fix isnt being worked on.

It is being worked on as we speak.

Do you seriously want to go there?

Here is what the CBO said about the ACA.

These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments.

Director's Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of Specifications for the Chairman?s Mark of the America?s Healthy Future Act

I would like to point a couple of lies.

1. The SGR that the ACA depended on to reduce the budget has already been modified.
2. Obama, in his SOTU, called on Congress to fix the flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

I don't have to assume he is going to lie in the future, I can look into the past, as recently as last night, and see the lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The other one highlighted by the OP is also NOT a lie.

He ssaid he will not sign a bill with earmarks.

Until he signs one after saying this it is not a lie.

Boner voted for bills with earmarks in them in the past also.

Damn near every bill he's signed has been filled with earmarks since his promise.

The numbers show that earmarks have not only not been stopped. Harry Reid's budget that was roundly rejected contained over $6 billion in earmarks.

the congress, not the president, control 'earmarks'. the president has no line-item veto. so it's all or nothing.

and, frankly, i've never seen why it was wrong for congress people to bring things back for the benefit of their districts -- as opposed to things for themselves.

He just categorically stated that he would sign no bill that contains earmarks. If he is actually serious about this, which I doubt, he can single handily eliminate earmarks for the rest of his term. That puts the responsibility squarely in his lap, not Congress's. You don't get to let him off the hook if he reneges on this one.