Tom Delay Declares All Fat Gone From Federal Budget

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Azi Tohak]

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

[Bartix]

No one agrees with him?
We apologize for T Delay.

[Papewaio]

72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.

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

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:

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

[Divinus Arma]

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


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


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.

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

[Red Harvest]

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

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

No one else wants to play contrarian?

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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. 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.