Senate Approves Cuts to Social Programs (Cutting $36B in Spending!)

Fox News ^ | November 03, 2005 | AP

[demkicker]

I swear, I wanted to vomit when I saw the clip of Ted Stevens threatening to quit if ANYONE dared touch his TWO HUNDRED MILLION + BRIDGES TO NOWHERE PROJECT! The problem in Washington is the career politicians who put their own self-interests over that of our country.

I used to think Ted Stevens was a good guy. I was wrong. He's nothing more than a political pimp. Sadly, there are lots of political pimps on the Republican side of the aisle and lately, they seem to be deaf when it comes to reigning in the spending. If they don't get hearing aides soon, it will be the downfall of the party, IMO.

[potlatch]

Yes, I remember about Stevens having a fit about it. It didn't sound like a neccessity to me.

Kindof like the Boston Project of Teddy's. Got more and more expensive as the years went by.

[Ciexyz]

Am waiting for the list of votes yay and nay.

[Herakles]

I think the people responding to this should learn to read more deeply;

"The Senate bill is estimated to trim $36 billion, or 2 percent, from budget deficits forecast at $1.6 trillion over five years."

But;

"The bill contains about $35 billion in new spending to go along with the cuts".


Sounds like hookes pookes smoke and mirrors to me.

The one I don't get is;

"The bill includes $3 billion to subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts."

So let me guess, someone in the skull & bones society owns a cable box business?

[Reagan Man]

$36 billion in cuts are not serious cuts in federal spending.

Congress and the Prez are out of control.

[calrighty]

Not so fast : )

[calrighty]

AMEN to that, brother!!

[calrighty]

Reagan Man tagline BTTT

[peyton randolph]

The Dems are really going to be able, amazingly, to move to the GOP's right in coming elections when it comes to controlling spending.

What this means is that the Dems will advocate gutting the GOP pork, preserving Dem pork, and call themselves fiscal conservatives in the process.

[GeronL]

Not a real cut, probably a cut in the rate of growth or something.... or it'll be spent elsewhere

[Hank Rearden]

This "cut" ought to cover the down payment on the gifts Bush will give to India when he goes there next year. And oh, gee, Pakistan is right next door - think they'll get any goodies on that trip?

[Hank Rearden]

I swear, I wanted to vomit when I saw the clip of Ted Stevens threatening to quit if ANYONE dared touch his TWO HUNDRED MILLION + BRIDGES TO NOWHERE PROJECT!

Yeah, what's the deal there? 85-15 vote to keep that pork? Thanks, Republicans!

Would any of us have missed the old parasite if he'd quit? I don't see the downside there at all.

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, $30 billion here, $30 billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

[George W. Bush]

"The bill includes $3 billion to subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts."

Herakles: So let me guess, someone in the skull & bones society owns a cable box business?

They are still mandating a switch from analog TV broadcasts to digital. Currently, they've slid it back to late 2009. And it'll probably slide again. We auctioned off all that bandwidth so the conglomerates could offer HDTV. But they don't really want to do it after all and are stalling to the max and using the bandwidth for other stuff.

You should expect they'll start spending even more on this category. I would expect if they actually buy any boxes, they'll be distributed to low-income or elderly in media markets that are already going HDTV/digital before the deadline.

Something to think about if you're considering a TV purchase. Not all HD sets have the right kind of tuner yet either.

[George W. Bush]

What concerns me is the percentage of conservatives here on Free Republic who simply take so-called "good news" at face value. As we see, what is presented to us often is quite different once you hose away the BS.

It's not so surprising really. There are conservatives. Then there are Republicans who think they're conservatives. Then there are some who fawn over our president like blushing giggling schoolgirls, much like the average Dim voter when Xlinton was in office.

Adherence to principle or party or personality. On a given issue, you can fit everyone into these categories.

In the Good Old Days at FR, it was so much simpler. Everyone hated Xlinton and the Dims. But now, when the GOP pulls the same stuff that would previously have elicited howls of outrage at FR, some people actually start cheering them on.

<scratches head>

Like DontTread, I was a little disturbed by the number who thought this was a great budget cut. But then I looked at all the folks whose instincts correctly told them that this is a sham 'cut' that hides the real increase in spending. And a few like DontTread who started digging out the facts to present what these 'cuts' really are.

[George W. Bush]

How sad it is that an increase in spending is hailed as a great achievement by many here on FR.

It is a great achievement. For Democrats.

[ELS]

Coleman, DeWine, Snowe and Chafee are the RINOs

Don't forget Collins (R-ME).

[Agrarian]

Which will show more guts than the GOP has. If we are fiscal conservatives, we should be willing to gut everyone's pork, including our own. Or at the very least, we should be less shamelss about it and keep the pork to a decently indecent level...

[mosquitobite]

They want O'Connor on the abortion case. That's the ONLY reason for the January delay. I predict it will be delayed further than that even.

[mosquitobite]

Nelson is scared to DEATH of his position in a red state. He's been all over the news on the Alito nomination. We need to put a ton of resources into getting a Republican in Nebraska and North Dakota.

I hope the Republicans realize our best strategy is to cut off the knees of red state Dems.