JUST BREAKING on fox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: HHKrepublican_2
Was this expected? Or is this in the wake of Katrina\Rita
2 posted on
11/03/2005 3:33:32 PM PST by
HHKrepublican_2
(you cant spell liberal without an L an I and an E...If the first ammendment doesnt work, use the 2nd)
To: HHKrepublican_2
I don't get it. They're starting to sound like conservatives, or something. Someone wake me up...
3 posted on
11/03/2005 3:34:07 PM PST by
gaijin
To: Borax Queen; sweetliberty
The measure also would permit exploratory oil drilling in an Alaskan wilderness (search) area. Ping!
4 posted on
11/03/2005 3:34:25 PM PST by
nicmarlo
To: HHKrepublican_2
Only in Washington is a reduction in the amount of increased spending considered to be a cut. Get rid of mandated welfare spending and do zero based budgeting yearly. Never happen because of the pork.
5 posted on
11/03/2005 3:34:29 PM PST by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: HHKrepublican_2
The bill, passed by a 52-47 vote, would make modest cuts to the health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled...This is fine, so long as we don't cut that bridge to NOWHERE in Alaska...
</sarcasm*>
7 posted on
11/03/2005 3:35:20 PM PST by
Onelifetogive
(* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
To: HHKrepublican_2
"The spending battle now heads to the House, where Republicans are divided over whether to cut more deeply across a broader range of social programs."
Take this victory, THEN come back for more!
8 posted on
11/03/2005 3:35:36 PM PST by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Are these actual cuts (i.e., spending less in real dollars than the previous year) or just less than what had been originally planned (but still an increase in spending)?
10 posted on
11/03/2005 3:35:55 PM PST by
CALawyer
To: HHKrepublican_2
I can't believe this passed in the Senate.
To: HHKrepublican_2
Senate Passes Budget Bill Cutting $36B in Spending!!, I guess the "Gang of 14" had other things on their minds today and missed this vote.
12 posted on
11/03/2005 3:36:14 PM PST by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Just hope Bush does not decide to use his veto pen for the first time on this!
To: HHKrepublican_2
To: HHKrepublican_2
giving Republicans a symbolic victory against ever-rising government spending.
Gee, that's odd I could have sworn that Republicans were in power in all three branches?
and this is a "victory?"
Great.
15 posted on
11/03/2005 3:36:26 PM PST by
trubluolyguy
(It was a joke! When you give me that look, I was joking!)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Out of 2.5 trillion? I guess it's a start.
To: HHKrepublican_2
18 posted on
11/03/2005 3:36:43 PM PST by
airborne
(Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Great! Now let's move on Alito. Jan. is pure BS.
20 posted on
11/03/2005 3:37:58 PM PST by
conservativebabe
(proud to be a vitriolic hyperconservative)
To: HHKrepublican_2
The same bill probably has $50 billion in new spending buried in the fine print.
22 posted on
11/03/2005 3:38:14 PM PST by
Mr Ramsbotham
(Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Let me guess...
Is this a reduction in the projected growth spending due to take affect in 2032?
To: HHKrepublican_2
36 billion over 360 years.
27 posted on
11/03/2005 3:40:07 PM PST by
Crawdad
(So the guy says to the doctor, "It hurts when I do this.")
To: HHKrepublican_2
To: HHKrepublican_2
It's a start. Too bad the Whine all the time Choir will never give them any credit for it.
31 posted on
11/03/2005 3:40:31 PM PST by
MNJohnnie
(Merry Alitomas!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson