DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat

M

Max Power

Guest
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

What planet is DeLay living on???

Does ANYONE believe him?

From the same article
annual nonmilitary and non-homeland security spending increased $303 billion between fiscal year 2001 and 2005; the acknowledged federal debt increased more than $2 trillion since fiscal year 2000; and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill is estimated to increase the government's unfunded obligations by $16 trillion.
 
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Howdy there Tom! I'm from your district, I work a couple blocks from your office in fact. There's a colleague of yours in congress I'd like you to meet, a fellow Texas representative in fact, I think he could help you with your dilemma. Say hello to Rep. Ron Paul.

annual nonmilitary and non-homeland security spending increased $303 billion between fiscal year 2001 and 2005; the acknowledged federal debt increased more than $2 trillion since fiscal year 2000; and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill is estimated to increase the government's unfunded obligations by $16 trillion.

The republicans are the new democrats. Have been since the late 90's actually, when their budgets exceeded President Slick's requested amounts for some departments. Mr. Bush is a flawless LBJ-style democrat, too. Let's bring back the days of one party in congress and another in the white house, so we can enjoy the blessings of sweet, merciful gridlock. :D

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

bwuahahahahha
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
The republicans are the new democrats. Have been since the late 90's actually, when their budgets exceeded President Slick's requested amounts for some departments. Mr. Bush is a flawless LBJ-style democrat, too. Let's bring back the days of one party in congress and another in the white house, so we can enjoy the blessings of sweet, merciful gridlock. :D

So true. Sad, but true.

On the other hand, I suppose the more we can spend, the more we will stave off depression.
 
Welcome Baron. You bring a lot to the table in these types of discussions; I'm glad you came over.

Anyone who claims there is no room for further cuts is living in a dreamworld.
 
Hey! I've got an idea for "cutting some of the fat." How about we scale down some of the bureacracy that has grown-up around this "fiscally conservative" administration! Or...here's a novel idea! Why don't we stop flushing money into that parking-lot they call 'Iraq.' Or...recall the tax cuts for the rich!
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Hey! I've got an idea for "cutting some of the fat." How about we scale down some of the bureacracy that has grown-up around this "fiscally conservative" administration! Or...here's a novel idea! Why don't we stop flushing money into that parking-lot they call 'Iraq.' Or...recall the tax cuts for the rich!

How about we stop flushing money into flooded cities and hurricane disasters? At 200 billion a pop, we may be paying more for natural disasters than for our military forces in Iraq.
 
Well, the question must be asked: Which is more ethical? An unprovoked, unilateral attack against a soveriegn nation based on unverified British intelligence reports...or helping storm victims. Hmmm.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Well, the question must be asked: Which is more ethical? An unprovoked, unilateral attack against a soveriegn nation based on unverified British intelligence reports...or helping storm victims. Hmmm.

You forgot about the part of protecting our country from attack...remember 9-11?...also an unprovoked, unilateral attack against a sovereign nation.
 
You forgot about the part of protecting our country from attack...remember 9-11?...also an unprovoked, unilateral attack against a sovereign nation.

Yeah, but we're not Al-Qaida, we used to stand for something. Now we have the Bush Doctrine! Anyway, what the heck does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Iraq didn't hijack our planes, Saudi Arabian terrorists did. 9/11 is really a non sequitor when you're talking about the Iraq war
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Yeah, but we're not Al-Qaida, we used to stand for something. Now we have the Bush Doctrine! Anyway, what the heck does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Iraq didn't hijack our planes, Iranian terrorists did. 9/11 is really a non sequitor when you're talking about the Iraq war
Hello. Not Iranian, but rather Saudi Arabian terrorists. No one, certainly not GW tied Iraq to 9/11, rather the Taliban, linked to Al Queda, run by Bin Laden, a Saudi by birth.

The rationale for attacking Iraq, was self-defense pre-emption:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030317-10.html
 
We've already seen this thread elsewhere.

Im not surprised you don't understand what Delay is doing. He is goading people into trying to prove him wrong.

As we speak Republican representatives are looking for pork in the budget to cut so we can offset the spending for Katrina.

So it looks like Delay's plan is working pretty well.
 
Helloooo, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, what's the difference? Some of the 9/11 hijackers sought and recieved safe passage. Anyway, you're arguing semantics here. And Bush DID tie Iraq to 9/11. That was one of the original reasons for going to war with them! They supposedly had monetary ties to Al-Qaida, which of course, they didn't.

As for preemption, hey! They didn't have WMDs either did they!?

But now the reason for the war is supposedly "spreading democracy to the middle east." "There's no f*ck up that this administration can't make it look like it was their plan all along." -Jon Stewart.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Helloooo, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, what's the difference? Some of the 9/11 hijackers sought and recieved safe passage. Anyway, you're arguing semantics here. And Bush DID tie Iraq to 9/11. That was one of the original reasons for going to war with them! They supposedly had monetary ties to Al-Qaida, which of course, they didn't.

As for preemption, hey! They didn't have WMDs either did they!?

But now the reason for the war is supposedly "spreading democracy to the middle east." "There's no f*ck up that this administration can't make it look like it was their plan all along." -Jon Stewart.
Read the first paragraph, you've proven yourself lower than a troll. You're ignorant. If you don't get the difference between Iranians and Saudis, you are incapable of getting what follows regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. :bsflag:
 
Hey, I thought that we would not differentiate between terrorists! Don't you even acknowledge the fact that the Iranians quartered these guys before the attacks? They were known Al-Qaida operatives! Hence: Iran, Saudi Arabia, who cares! You're arguing semantics!
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Hey, I thought that we would not differentiate between terrorists! Don't you even acknowledge the fact that the Iranians quartered these guys before the attacks? They were known Al-Qaida operatives! Hence: Iran, Saudi Arabia, who cares! You're arguing semantics!
I'm clueless and curious to what the heck you are speaking of. So throw up some links.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Went to the second, Time. For some reason, the first didn't ring right. Not that Time does, but at least we all know what we are speaking about.

With that out of the way...

Since the left dislikes the war, we are supposed to buy into their arguments? That is the gist here. On the other hand, they dismiss out of hand, those that think the military is accomplishing something. Backs up other blog entries. So thanks.
 
What? I was presenting facts to back up what I said about Iranians quartering al-Qaeda operatives who participated in the 9/11 hijackings, which I succeeded in doing.

Now, as for the Iraq war, it has been proven to be completely unjustified. There never was a "nucular" program. There never were any WMDs. There are African kings who have murdered thousands more of their own subjects than Saddam ever did or ever wanted to, so that kills the "human interest" argument, and the "democracy" we built over there is a total joke and can't agree on anything because the three ethnic groups over there hate each other so much.

So now we're left with an "unaccomplished mission" and a military that's stretched beyond its means and a pile of incompetencies, lies and failures headed by an administration that has the lowest job approval ratings ever!

So what were you saying about the "war in Iraq?"
 
Avatar4321 said:
We've already seen this thread elsewhere.

Im not surprised you don't understand what Delay is doing. He is goading people into trying to prove him wrong.

As we speak Republican representatives are looking for pork in the budget to cut so we can offset the spending for Katrina.

So it looks like Delay's plan is working pretty well.

That is an excellent spin job. Well done.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Now, as for the Iraq war, it has been proven to be completely unjustified.

No it hasn't. The forces of freedom need a foothold in the region. Saddam was a bad guy. It's a win win. I don't care if we put him in power. Things change, no?
 

Forum List

Back
Top