Terry Tate Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 With football season underway, maybe everyone missed the whopper Tom Delay let go on the outstanding job the GOP has done on cutting federal spending. Washington Times article 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. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. If only we had a Republican revolution to replace these reckless spenders with financially responsible politicians. Oh, wait. We did. If you're a true conservative, and you support the GOP, please reconsider.
KRC Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 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. 446460[/snapback] Sorry, but I gotta call bull sh-- on that one. They have not even scratched the surface on cutting wasteful spending.
VABills Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Sorry, but I gotta call bull sh-- on that one. They have not even scratched the surface on cutting wasteful spending. 446481[/snapback] I know this has been said before. Just because they vote for something, doesn't mean they vote to appropriate funds for it.
KRC Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I know this has been said before. Just because they vote for something, doesn't mean they vote to appropriate funds for it. 446513[/snapback] Yeah, look at John Kerry and Iraq. Seriously, I look at the budget, the amendments to the budget and how people vote on said budget and the aforementioned amendments.
Mickey Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Sorry, but I gotta call bull sh-- on that one. They have not even scratched the surface on cutting wasteful spending. 446481[/snapback] Somebody should send Delay a copy of the trans-pork-tation bill. Here are some of the "vital" items in that bill: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center. I'm sure they are all great ideas but couldn't they wait until after the war maybe? I was going to look up who voted for it and who didn't but why bother? I am sure it was a bi-partisan orgy of goody swapping.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 All I know is I can drive up to Gravina Island, Alaska without have to take a ferry. FINALLY. Thanks George.
Terry Tate Posted September 19, 2005 Author Posted September 19, 2005 Somebody should send Delay a copy of the trans-pork-tation bill. No need to stop there. Include the farm subsidies, NCLB, Medicare rx's, etc. etc. I was going to look up who voted for it and who didn't but why bother? I am sure it was a bi-partisan orgy of goody swapping. And that sums up why neither Republicans or Democrats will get my vote from now on.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Line item veto...again. Don't blame the President of either party without this ability.
KRC Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Line item veto...again. Don't blame the President of either party without this ability. 446665[/snapback] The problem you have with the line item veto is that you are now delegating the powers of Congress to the Executive branch. I personally like the line item veto, but you do have issues with its implimentation.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 The problem you have with the line item veto is that you are now delegating the powers of Congress to the Executive branch. I personally like the line item veto, but you do have issues with its implimentation. 446690[/snapback] And the fact that Congress will never allow it. How is that really a delegation, though. Why not use the same procedures as a normal presidential veto?
Terry Tate Posted September 19, 2005 Author Posted September 19, 2005 Line item veto...again. Don't blame the President of either party without this ability. I don't know that I care about a line-item veto. It would shift more of the scratch-each-other's-back politics of bills to the White House, which may not even be noticable to us unclean outside the beltway. It would allow the President to cut out individual wasteful items, to be sure. BUT, it wouldn't stop him from continuing to fully support some of the biggest wastes of money on things that, IMHO, are not a function of the federal government. And that's what I'm really p.o.'ed about.
KRC Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 And the fact that Congress will never allow it. How is that really a delegation, though. Why not use the same procedures as a normal presidential veto? 446695[/snapback] Because, you can make the argument that the President is now crafting legislation or controlling the budget. He has no authority to do either. The regular veto is just a yes or no as part of the checks and balances system. The line item veto goes beyond that and gives the president powers strictly delegated to the legislative branch. You are correct that Congress would never allow the line item veto and it is for the reasons mentioned. The President will be taking away the authority of the legislative branch.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I don't know that I care about a line-item veto. It would shift more of the scratch-each-other's-back politics of bills to the White House, which may not even be noticable to us unclean outside the beltway. It would allow the President to cut out individual wasteful items, to be sure. BUT, it wouldn't stop him from continuing to fully support some of the biggest wastes of money on things that, IMHO, are not a function of the federal government. And that's what I'm really p.o.'ed about. 446696[/snapback] So, what's different now? At least the ability would be there to change it, and it would make it easier to affix "blame" and address acountibilty. Don't forget, there have been a couple of President's besides Bush. don't think the Democrats haven't done the same things, all administrations do.
Terry Tate Posted September 19, 2005 Author Posted September 19, 2005 So, what's different now? At least the ability would be there to change it, and it would make it easier to affix "blame" and address acountibilty. Don't forget, there have been a couple of President's besides Bush. don't think the Democrats haven't done the same things, all administrations do. 446712[/snapback] What's different now? Unfortunately, just me. I'm affixing blame to both parties, whereas before I blamed only Democrats. I don't think a line item veto would be enough to change my mind at this point. The President has supported too many enormous spending items I disagree with to regain my support by scratching out some additional pork. I appreciate what you're saying, I just think it's emptying a bucket with a eye dropper - I want to kick the bucket over.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 And the fact that Congress will never allow it. How is that really a delegation, though. Why not use the same procedures as a normal presidential veto? 446695[/snapback] I thought Congress already passed the line item veto (part of the Contract with America) and the Supreme Court took it away by calling it unconstitutional?
KRC Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I thought Congress already passed the line item veto (part of the Contract with America) and the Supreme Court took it away by calling it unconstitutional? 446757[/snapback] Correct: Linky Thingy
RkFast Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Somebody should send Delay a copy of the trans-pork-tation bill. Here are some of the "vital" items in that bill: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center. I'm sure they are all great ideas but couldn't they wait until after the war maybe? I was going to look up who voted for it and who didn't but why bother? I am sure it was a bi-partisan orgy of goody swapping. 446543[/snapback] Wait a sec...this is pork? They all sound like projects properly presented in the bill to me, no? Seriously....Im asking. I always thought pork was the inclusion of bs that had nothing to do with the initial bill.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 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. 446460[/snapback] Does anyone here aside from RiO actually buy this line of retatta? I could probably cut $50B from the defense budget alone without breaking a sweat or materially effecting the security of the country.
UConn James Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I think you'd like Steve Laffey, who's running for in a Senate primary against Linc Chaffee (R(-INO)) in R.I. I can live with Republicans, and I might even vote for them again, if they govern rather than load up on pork and preach morals. I've watched him over the years and I mostly find myself saying "%$^& YEAH!" whenever he's on TV. He's the mayor in one of the bigger cities, took over when they were in the red by so much it wasn't even funny; cleaned it up and pissed off a lot of people b/c he cut off the gravy train and did things that made fiscal sense. The city is the better for it and they're getting back on track. It was really telling when the Bush-buddy RNC refused to support Laffey even when he was mulling running for Jack Reed's seat, so he figured, wtf. Proof positive that the two sides don't want things to change. Defecit finance and running in the red is great, don't you know?
Recommended Posts