Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
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.
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.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
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.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.
I'm clueless and curious to what the heck you are speaking of. So throw up some links.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!
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.Hagbard Celine said:
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.
Hagbard Celine said:Now, as for the Iraq war, it has been proven to be completely unjustified.
