Tom Delay Declares All Fat Gone From Federal Budget

I saw this item and was curious what the Org would have to say about it. Tom Delay told the Washinton Times a most curious thing:

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 a complete ass.

This has to have been a calculated effort to spur more talk on spending. Any idiot knows the government is still full of pork and he'd have to know that people are well aware of that. People may think he's lots of things, but I don't think a drooling moron is one of them. ~D

Gotta go with, 'What a complete ass' on this one as well.

I like how Andrew Sullivan summed this one up:

This is what conservatism has now come to mean: the worst aspects of big government liberalism with the worst aspects of meddling in the moral decisions of people's private lives. And the people who have done this seem oblivious to it. I will remind you, Tom DeLay equated a balanced budget with fiscal sanity in the Clinton years. But now it's his budget, and his constituents and interest groups who get to feed at the trough, and the sky is the limit. A reminder to fiscal conservatives: today's GOP isn't just not what it used to be; it's your main enemy now. Conservatism has been hijacked by puritans and spendthrifts. Their unifying philosophy is meddling in other people's lives and spending other people's money.

Can Russia have some money? ~D

We'd pay you back... :hide: ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

Their unifying philosophy is meddling in other people's lives and spending other people's money.

---

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I smell... wait... what is that smell? It comes from a Bull... and is made of twinkies...

Yup! There it is! Found it!

Too bad I stepped in it :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Their unifying philosophy is meddling in other people's lives and spending other people's money.

---

Isn't this sad? It is perfectly applicable to the GOP as well as Democrats now.

Azi

Bah, we already give $2B a year to Israel and $1B a year to Egypt. We just gave $50m to the Palestinian Terrorist...er...'Liberation' Orginization. That could be cut, along with a heck of a lot of stuff. (Congress' staffs and budgets, cut a whole bunch of department budgets, etc.)

What a stupid thing to say. Is it a calculated ploy? Perhaps, and then I may rejudge my evaluation. But not until then.

Crazed Rabbit

Can I have my vote back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Can I have my vote back?

---

NO!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Isn't this sad? It is perfectly applicable to the GOP as well as Democrats now.

---

Huh? The dems have the rep of NOT meddling in private issues. So I don't see how the "lives" part of the quoted statement would apply to them.

It is no real surprise. The last couple of elections have been decided on "binge politics." Promise free money, get elected. It's a reversal of the responsible approach that had life breathed into it by Perot's focus on the deficit. Now, life's just a big party as long as we never have to clean up. The GOP has control of the govt. now, and with weak opposition there is nothing to force them to restrain themselves. Whether it is Dems or GOP in control it is best if there is healthy opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This has to have been a calculated effort to spur more talk on spending. Any idiot knows the government is still full of pork and he'd have to know that people are well aware of that. People may think he's lots of things, but I don't think a drooling moron is one of them.

---

You know, he is a member of Congress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Bah, we already give $2B a year to Israel and $1B a year to Egypt. We just gave $50m to the Palestinian Terrorist...er...'Liberation' Orginization. That could be cut, along with a heck of a lot of stuff. (Congress' staffs and budgets, cut a whole bunch of department budgets, etc.)

What a stupid thing to say. Is it a calculated ploy? Perhaps, and then I may rejudge my evaluation. But not until then.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Pfft, the Highway Bill alone has almost enough pork to pay for the NO relief effort.

The Heritage Foundation has an amusing list of pork Delay and his friends in Congress could cut ...

Yay We are all in agreement I say this moment gets freezed in time

As a card carrying member of the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute & National Review, I found this story quite sad.

The conservative ideology hasn't been hijacked, but the Republican party sure has. I'm not a National Socialist any more than I'm a Marxist Socialist. I might have to stay home this next election.

But, Red, one word of dissent...yes, the Democrats meddle in people's lives... or do you think passing laws to ban people from being able to pray isn't meddling? Let's call a spade a spade, both sides have shrugged off any pretense at their announced ideology and have shown themselves to be: "Anything we can do to get a few more votes". There's no ideology left on other side...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But, Red, one word of dissent...yes, the Democrats meddle in people's lives... or do you think passing laws to ban people from being able to pray isn't meddling? Let's call a spade a spade, both sides have shrugged off any pretense at their announced ideology and have shown themselves to be: "Anything we can do to get a few more votes". There's no ideology left on other side...

---

Don't forget them telling you how and when to spend your money, what you can say and where you can say it, what kind of car you can drive, what you can do with your private property, and grabbing guns- to name a few. Hardly a track record of "NOT meddling".

Of course, this in no way excuses Republican failings. But, Don, staying at home is hardly an option. We have no right to complain about a lack of a viable 3rd party if we're going to stay home during elections because we don't like the Republican candidate. I'd also recommend keeping your Republican registration if it's required to vote in primaries in your state. The party won't be made more conservative by all of the conservatives jumping ship. :bow:

It seems that there is no party for somone who believes in a smaller, more focused Federal government. As much of a loonbat as Perot was, at least he pushed fiscal prudence into the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But, Red, one word of dissent...yes, the Democrats meddle in people's lives... or do you think passing laws to ban people from being able to pray isn't meddling?

---

Nope. That's a public issue vs. private. I've not seen any laws that prevent me from praying. Organized government public prayer is another matter entirely.

Ick. I was on the DNP website hunting for topics. I feel dirty now.

This is what I have found:

Gun control, affirmative action (still biting me), health care, welfare, diversity, political-correctness.

Aren't my guns, my beliefs, my hiring practices, my health care, my welfare, my thoughts my buisness? Or because I might offend someone, it becomes your buisness too right?

Edit: Ha! Just thought of another one. What about Queen Clinton and her crusade against sex in games? Does that not interfere with something we all enjoy? Let me enjoy what I want, when I want.

Azi

No one agrees with him? ~:confused:
We apologize for T Delay. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.

---

I wonder if NO is going to get the 73rd program?

Quote:

---

Yet in FY 2004, $154 billion was appropriated for programs classified as ineffective or unable to demonstrate results.[3] Congress largely ignored President Bush’s calls to terminate many of these programs.

---

So if they did as the Pres said, they could halve the deficit.

So why aren't the Republicans falling in line with the Pres... or does this tie in with:

Quote:

---

Since 1998, the number of pork projects has leapt from 2,000 to 14,000 per year

---

OMG! Even Red Harvest said the Government has too much fat!!! ~:eek:


I'll even admit that "Conservatives" ain't so conservative any more. Remember what happened with Scalia and private property rights? :furious3:


I'm thinking the Libertarians are looking pretty good. The problem is that they have no power and all the major libertarian players have conceded to working within the Republican Party to get stuff done. Thus, the "Republican Liberty Caucus": http://www.rlc.org/.

Too bad America is turning the corner. We are all becoming what we have always stood against. :embarassed:

We just had the thread on "social peace". Americans are simply lazy. We will be taken over by our own elites. :furious3: :help:

No one else wants to play contrarian? :shrug:

What Tom probably meant was that all programs that did not help good people have been cut. Those 14,000 "pork" projects most likely have a positive benefit on the communities in which they go to.

A new bridge, a better water-way, a community center... All these have a positive benefit on society, and when a society prospers so do incomes, which means increased tax revenue.

The government obviously feels it can get away with spending this much money, so why shouldnt it? Is it not better to improve things now when money is abundent than not have infrastructure down the road when it cannot be paid for?

Sure some of those 14k programs are silly, and those are the ones that get publicised. Im sure plenty of them do have a positive benefit, and what is the problem with reinvesting in the community - even if it is just pandering for votes?

Also, Ive never seen the point in a government having a surplus. That means one of two things:

a) The government is taxing too much
b) The government is not reinvesting enough into the country



Note, those viewpoints may - but probably do not - represent my opinion on the issue.

Quote:

---

Pfft, the Highway Bill alone has almost enough pork to pay for the NO relief effort.

---

I hear Mc Cain wants to yank 450 million out of the pork from that bill and give it to NO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

This is what I have found:

Gun control, affirmative action (still biting me), health care, welfare, diversity, political-correctness.

Aren't my guns, my beliefs, my hiring practices, my health care, my welfare, my thoughts my buisness? Or because I might offend someone, it becomes your buisness too right?

Edit: Ha! Just thought of another one. What about Queen Clinton and her crusade against sex in games? Does that not interfere with something we all enjoy? Let me enjoy what I want, when I want.

Azi

---

If you can't see the difference, then I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll give it a shot:

Gun control is more of a 2nd amendment, perceived threat issue with the Democrats. To them it is a public safety issue.

I don't see the Dems telling you what you have to believe. You are about 12 years too late on "Political Correctness"--talk about a stale issue! The Dems do focus on non-hostile work place type issues. That's what happens when your party disproportionately represents minorities and women compared with the white male domination of the GOP. Yes, some of that does become other people's business when you offend them in public in various ways. To make an analogy in GOP parlance, if somebody choses to have whatever type of sex out on the sidewalk, it is no longer a "private" issue that they are having sex...see the comparison?

Health care. God forbid that you should be *forced* to have access to affordable health care. Oh the tyranny of it, those b******s! The Sun might stop shining, the ground open up and swallow us all whole. ~:eek: If you are lucky, your employer will offer decent health care coverage, it is getting rarer these days, and far more costly than a few years ago. Ok, if you are single, problematic if you decide to get married and/or have kids. Darn, now we are into REAL family values territory aren't we?

Welfare. Again, God forbid their should be a safety net. Instead we should try to be more like 3rd world countries, right? Still not sure how this is a "private" issue???

Diversity is good, affirmitive action is not. Side note: Part of that is diversity in thought...something conservative business leaders don't seem to understand or appreciate it least in the industries I work with. They try to squash that out...and that messy creativity that comes with it, so hard to manage. It's funny the sort of monoculture they try to create. They are succeeding as the diverse and creative types are fleeing the field. Don't worry, your expressed political views will fit right in with the current business culture.

Hillary. Taking notes from Tipper I suppose. All politicians all go on moral crusades at times. Afterall, the GOP has been winning with their "family values" mantra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I hear Mc Cain wants to yank 450 million out of the pork from that bill and give it to NO.

---

It still won't earn him my support. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Also, Ive never seen the point in a government having a surplus. That means one of two things:

a) The government is taxing too much
b) The government is not reinvesting enough into the country

---

I've never seen the point of running a massive deficit every year. Don't worry, we won't be having surpluses again for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

OMG! Even Red Harvest said the Government has too much fat!!! ~:eek:

---

No surprise if you actually knew anything about me. I'm tight with a buck, but I save and spend on long term projects. I believe in belt tightening and paying things off, rather than spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

I think we should start by cutting Dubya's pay back to what Clinton was getting...and also deducting for anything over two weeks of vacation per year. Of course, I've always felt the office holder's salaries should be indexed to inflation each year...and minimum wage too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Of course, I've always felt the office holder's salaries should be indexed to inflation each year...and minimum wage too.

---

Indexed to inflation would only encourage bad budgets... up the inflation... up the income. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Indexed to inflation would only encourage bad budgets... up the inflation... up the income. ~;)

---

Nah, there is no real gain in it, as you suffer just as much from inflation as you gain in salary. The best part about indexing like that is that it removes one of the big political footballs that is quite often a waste of time, and a poor choice for focusing public attention.

Tying federal office holder salaries to minimum wage via use of the same index has lots of appeal...as it keeps lawmakers more cognizant of their shared existence with the lowest wage earners. It also would be easier for business to adjust to since it would be gradual, rather than moving in leaps every 6 or 8 years.

Quote:

---

Also, Ive never seen the point in a government having a surplus. That means one of two things:

a) The government is taxing too much
b) The government is not reinvesting enough into the country

---

Well the debt is costing you about 375 billion dollars a year (about 80% of your military budget BTW) Source , or about 1250 dollars/year extra taxes for every citizen in the US. With no growing debt and only interest payments it would take about 21 years for you to pay the same amount of money as your entire debt, for nothing.

The point for the goverment is to have a 0 sum game when it comes to the budget. This is done by having some years losing money and some years with surplus to compensate for that and for extraordinary expenses (think rebuilding after Katrina and the current Iraqi-situation). Spiral down in debt isn't exactly good. The voters are there to keep them in line with that 0 sum game.

And I'm aware of that's getting more complicated than that due to inflation and "extra growth thanks to extra capital", but I think we all agree that at the current situation, US isn't benefitting on going more into debt.

Edit:

Sorry, PJ, should have read your post more closely... Yes, of course, there's always some 'public good' justification for pork projects. But that doesn't mean we need to build Ross Perot a new airport, or any one of zillion different spending programs we blow cash on.

I think it's dishonest to talk about the government running a surplus while we still have a debt. If the government had no debt, then yes, they shouldn't be in the habit of hoarding cash (a principal somebody should drop on my local city council). But were I crowned King, every last cent I could wring out of the budget would go to debt reduction. The only reason I was in favor of tax cuts, at the time, was because I thought it would reduce federal spending. Clearly, all it's done is balloon our national debt.

Quote:

---

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 he was misquoted, what he really said was:

Quote:

---

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending in Democratic regions and districts that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget without endangering Republican seats in the next election.

---

We are talking about a Congressman, after all. ~;)