DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat

[Hagbard Celine]

You know, denial really isn't just a river in Egypt.

Things change, no?

Yeah, like the reasons for going to war. They changed about five times.

 

[archangel]

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?"

so many times long before you entered this board....Saddam did support terrorism...gave money to Al Quaeda,Osama,gave aid and comfort to Al Zarqawi heck even Saddams sons hung with al Zarqawi...he was put up in a Iraq hospital to heal from battle wounds...if ya want links please ask a mod to bring up past posts on this subject....geeez!

 

[ProudDem]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm


What planet is DeLay living on???

Does ANYONE believe him?

From the same article

OMG, I totally agree. I really despise Tom DeLay, so it's hard for me to give him any credit.

Look, his seat is coming up for election next year. He HAS to sound positive and pretend that we're not in the horrible deficit that we are. Gawd forbid we raise taxes to help pay for Katrina.

I am crossing my fingers that he loses the election. That would be a joyous moment for me.

 

[dilloduck]

OMG, I totally agree. I really despise Tom DeLay, so it's hard for me to give him any credit.

Look, his seat is coming up for election next year. He HAS to sound positive and pretend that we're not in the horrible deficit that we are. Gawd forbid we raise taxes to help pay for Katrina.

I am crossing my fingers that he loses the election. That would be a joyous moment for me.

Why--do you live in his district?

 

[ProudDem]

Why--do you live in his district?

No, Dillo, I would just like him to be defeated.

I have met Nick Lampson, the congressman whose seat he took. Lampson will be running against him. We shall see what happens.

Now go to the political board and tell me what "bad choices" Bush has made. I am all ears.

 

[theim]

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.

Who are you to decide ethics? If you had your way, Saddam would still be having children raped in front of their parents. That is a fact.

And no amount of spinning or bleating about WMDs or "shifting rationales" will change that fact.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Who are you to decide ethics? If you had your way, Saddam would still be having children raped in front of their parents. That is a fact.

And no amount of spinning or bleating about WMDs or "shifting rationales" will change that fact.

As usual, my comments have been spun, respun and hung out to dry by a conservative. You've taken what I said completely out of context. I've never said Saddam is a moral man. What I said was a response to ScreamingEagle when he said,

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.

Now, the moment of truth. Which is MORE ethical? Sending money to help fellow American citizens displaced by a natural disaster? Or sending money to fund a war that kills innocent Iraqi citizens, US soldiers and insurgents.

$$$DEATH??? ~OR~ $$$DISASTER RELIEF???

You've got a 50/50 chance here AND I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. But who am I kidding. You're a conservative warhawk so the answer is obvious. In your eyes it's better to spend a million dollars on a bomb than it is to spend 50 cents to enrich the life of another human being.

 

[theim]

Who are you to decide ethics? If you had your way, Saddam would still be having children raped in front of their parents. That is a fact.

And no amount of spinning or bleating about WMDs or "shifting rationales" will change that fact.QUOTE]

As usual, my comments have been spun, respun and hung out to dry by a conservative. You've taken what I said completely out of context. I've never said Saddam is a moral man. What I said was a response to ScreamingEagle when he said,



Now, the moment of truth. Which is MORE ethical? Sending money to help fellow American citizens displaced by a natural disaster? Or sending money to fund a war that kills innocent Iraqi citizens, US soldiers and insurgents.

$$$DEATH??? ~OR~ $$$DISASTER RELIEF???

You've got a 50/50 chance here AND I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. But who am I kidding. You're a conservative warhawk so the answer is obvious. In your eyes it's better to spend a million dollars on a bomb than it is to spend 50 cents to enrich the life of another human being.

I have a choice here, hmmm? Tax money can go to:


1) War on Terror

Citizens cannot privately fight a war on terror. Only a government military can do this. Ergo, the government should foot the bill for this one. Are we still on the same page? Good. Now, while I realize that human rights has never been really high on the liberal socialist agenda, many, myself included, see an anti-American regime who tortures and rapes its own civilians and say "Hey, this would be a pretty good ass to kick". Your insinuation that we are just, you know, there because someone thought it would be fun to see people kill other people and blow stuff up is frankly disgusting and not worthy of comment, save "STFU and take of the tinfoil hat."

2) Hurricane Relief

Citizens privately ARE capable and willing to pitch in great amounts of money and supplies, and have already done so. Thus, it would appear prudent to allow this to take place and allow the Government to save its money for option #1, as well as other issues.

And by the way, bombs have done more to enrich lives around the world than your birkenstocks-wearing kumbaya-singing hippie buddies.

 

[theim]

Oh, and before you reply, I should let you know that I just picked up this little guy. Now you can take a break, and relax. He adds just as much to the discourse as you do.



<iframe src="http://blog.gleeson.us/avm/avm_sidebar" width="150" height="240" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>


I think the little guy shows promise!

 

[ProudDem]

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."

Oh, the republicans should be so proud of themselves. In today's Washington Post:

Fiscal Policy: Why 'Stupid' Fits

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, September 23, 2005; A23

Hurricane Rita heads inexorably westward, threatening to add to the human and financial costs of Hurricane Katrina. And when it comes to taxes and spending, Washington acts as if nothing is happening.

True, a group of very conservative Republicans issued a list of program cuts on Wednesday under the imposing name "Operation Offset." The cuts that the Republican Study Committee proposed have won their sponsors praise for making "tough choices." Of course the sponsors won't actually have to live with these cuts, because Republican leaders dismissed most of the reductions, especially in congressional pet projects and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

And it's hard to give the fiscal conservatives too much credit, since they would cut $80 billion from Medicare and $50 billion from Medicaid over five years and suggest reductions in school lunches, rent subsidies for the poor and foreign aid, among other things. The idea seems to be that to help Katrina's poor and suffering victims, other poor and suffering people will have to sacrifice.

Nonetheless, permit me to offer a little cheap grace on these conservatives. At least the Operation Offset crowd has produced this list of cuts and forced its own leaders to disown them. The exchange showed how fundamentally stupid our budget policies have been over the past five years -- and, yes, I'll defend that strong word.

Here's a fact getting far too little attention: The cost this year alone of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 comes to $225 billion. In other words, the revenue lost because of tax cuts going through this year without any congressional action would more than pay the costs of Katrina recovery. . . .

I'd have much more respect for these guys if they just came out and said: "Look, we love deficit spending. That's why we waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cut taxes at the same time. It's why we'll talk about offsets for Katrina and Rita but never enact them, except maybe a few cuts in programs for the poor. All we really care about are passing tax cuts -- and popular spending programs that get us reelected so we can enact more tax cuts."

The rest of the article is found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092202255.html

 

[theim]

Oh, the republicans should be so proud of themselves. In today's Washington Post:

Fiscal Policy: Why 'Stupid' Fits

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, September 23, 2005; A23

Hurricane Rita heads inexorably westward, threatening to add to the human and financial costs of Hurricane Katrina. And when it comes to taxes and spending, Washington acts as if nothing is happening.

True, a group of very conservative Republicans issued a list of program cuts on Wednesday under the imposing name "Operation Offset." The cuts that the Republican Study Committee proposed have won their sponsors praise for making "tough choices." Of course the sponsors won't actually have to live with these cuts, because Republican leaders dismissed most of the reductions, especially in congressional pet projects and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

And it's hard to give the fiscal conservatives too much credit, since they would cut $80 billion from Medicare and $50 billion from Medicaid over five years and suggest reductions in school lunches, rent subsidies for the poor and foreign aid, among other things. The idea seems to be that to help Katrina's poor and suffering victims, other poor and suffering people will have to sacrifice.

Nonetheless, permit me to offer a little cheap grace on these conservatives. At least the Operation Offset crowd has produced this list of cuts and forced its own leaders to disown them. The exchange showed how fundamentally stupid our budget policies have been over the past five years -- and, yes, I'll defend that strong word.

Here's a fact getting far too little attention: The cost this year alone of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 comes to $225 billion. In other words, the revenue lost because of tax cuts going through this year without any congressional action would more than pay the costs of Katrina recovery. . . .

I'd have much more respect for these guys if they just came out and said: "Look, we love deficit spending. That's why we waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cut taxes at the same time. It's why we'll talk about offsets for Katrina and Rita but never enact them, except maybe a few cuts in programs for the poor. All we really care about are passing tax cuts -- and popular spending programs that get us reelected so we can enact more tax cuts."

The rest of the article is found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092202255.html

And this is the fundamental difference between us. You say "tax people more". I say "cut the wasteful pork/useless social programs".

 

[ProudDem]

And this is the fundamental difference between us. You say "tax people more". I say "cut the wasteful pork/useless social programs".

I don't believe in taxing in all situations. This isn't about tax increases--this is about halting Bush's tax cuts. We are in a humongous deficit. We are in a time of war, which is costing us billions of dollars. We have been hit by a hurricane that we did not anticipate for, which will cost billions to rebuild the destruction. We are going to get hit again with another hurricane, which is anticipated to be one of the worst ones we have seen since 1900. Do you really think that making the tax cuts permanent is appropriate?

Sorry, but even former republican presidents realized that providing tax cuts during a time of war isn't appropriate.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't believe in taxing in all situations. This isn't about tax increases--this is about halting Bush's tax cuts. We are in a humongous deficit. We are in a time of war, which is costing us billions of dollars. We have been hit by a hurricane that we did not anticipate for, which will cost billions to rebuild the destruction. We are going to get hit again with another hurricane, which is anticipated to be one of the worst ones we have seen since 1900. Do you really think that making the tax cuts permanent is appropriate?

Sorry, but even former republican presidents realized that providing tax cuts during a time of war isn't appropriate.

Why raise taxes when congress blows the money on dumbass projects and the president won't veto them ?

 

[ProudDem]

Why raise taxes when congress blows the money on dumbass projects and the president won't veto them ?

I am not suggesting a tax increase. I am talking about not making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Dillo, please address how we are going to be able to pay for the war in Iraq, the rebuilding of Mississippi and Louisiana, and the upcoming hurricane when our deficit is in the trillions......

BTW, you never answered the question I asked you in another thread, where you said that all presidents make good choices and bad choices, and I asked you which bad choices Bush had made. Do you care to answer that question?

 

[dilloduck]

I am not suggesting a tax increase. I am talking about not making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Dillo, please address how we are going to be able to pay for the war in Iraq, the rebuilding of Mississippi and Louisiana, and the upcoming hurricane when our deficit is in the trillions......

BTW, you never answered the question I asked you in another thread, where you said that all presidents make good choices and bad choices, and I asked you which bad choices Bush had made. Do you care to answer that question?

Semantics-not making tax cuts permanent has the same result that raising taxes.
There is wasteful spending occuring EVERYWHERE. It's absurd--cut it!!

One bad choice--not closing our border with Mexico.

 

[ProudDem]

Semantics-not making tax cuts permanent has the same result that raising taxes.
There is wasteful spending occuring EVERYWHERE. It's absurd--cut it!!

One bad choice--not closing our border with Mexico.

Okay, I can see that this exchange is going nowhere.

 

[dilloduck]

Okay, I can see that this exchange is going nowhere.

Going nowhere??? I've responded to everything you asked. What makes you think it's going nowhere?

 

[ProudDem]

Going nowhere??? I've responded to everything you asked. What makes you think it's going nowhere?

You see that NOT making the tax cuts permanent is a tax increase. Hmmmm. So if there is a sale at Macy's and you get your shirt at a discount for that sale period, do you say that Macy's has increased their prices when the sale is over?

Same thing with this sale going on at GM--right now, you pay what the employees pay. After a certain date, you won't get that discount anymore. Does that mean that car prices have been increased?

 

[dilloduck]

You see that NOT making the tax cuts permanent is a tax increase. Hmmmm. So if there is a sale at Macy's and you get your shirt at a discount for that sale period, do you say that Macy's has increased their prices when the sale is over?

Same thing with this sale going on at GM--right now, you pay what the employees pay. After a certain date, you won't get that discount anymore. Does that mean that car prices have been increased?

As of now, people are paying X amount of taxes and tax revenues have increased dramatically thus helping out our economy. You want to reverse this status quo and ask people to pay MORE than X amount of taxes.

 

[ProudDem]

As of now, people are paying X amount of taxes and tax revenues have increased dramatically thus helping out our economy. You want to reverse this status quo and ask people to pay MORE than X amount of taxes.

Would you please answer my questions? I want to know your take on the two factual scenarios I gave you.

The tax cut was temporary. So you think we should cut other programs to pay for the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Katrina?