JUST BREAKING on fox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
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. 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
Yea, I would stutter on that statement too! ; )
98 posted on
11/03/2005 4:59:51 PM PST by
EGPWS
To: HHKrepublican_2
The federal budget has increased by over 600 billion dollars a year under this administration.
This includes ballooning mandatory entitlements (+320 billion), discretionary non defense spending (+160 billion), and discretionary defense spending (the balance.)
Cutting proposed increases by 7.2 billion dollars a year is so minor as to barely be worthy of the term baby step.
102 posted on
11/03/2005 5:08:48 PM PST by
CGTRWK
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, but leave the food stamp program untouched. "
Who missed the vote?
106 posted on
11/03/2005 5:22:09 PM PST by
EQAndyBuzz
(Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
To: HHKrepublican_2
The liars on the media are already reporting this as "CUTS" in "PROGRAMS" that are "DESIGNED TO HELP THE ELDERLY AND POOR".
They actually emphasis the words in caps. Talk about lies.
First, they are, as usual, decreases in the rate of increase and the programs are duplicates, inefficient or flat out don't work.
And if they were so great we wouldn't have poverty now would we? And why is it that all the "elderly" need help? My parents are over 70 and they don't need any government programs. Most retired elderly I know live pretty well on fat pensions and savings as well as Social Security.
The left just can't take the truth.
111 posted on
11/03/2005 5:31:52 PM PST by
Fledermaus
(For years Rush has said the left would really go off the deep end once out of power. He was right!)
To: HHKrepublican_2
The Alaska drilling is great - I can't believe anyone is still against that after those two hurricanes.
Don't forget W wants 7.1 billion for bird flu.
116 posted on
11/03/2005 5:34:20 PM PST by
kerryusama04
(The UN wants our guns so they can rape our children and steal our money)
To: HHKrepublican_2
127 posted on
11/03/2005 5:43:26 PM PST by
NeoCaveman
(Confirm Judge Alito now. Yes I am an Alitist)
To: HHKrepublican_2
CUT MORE!!! CUT MORE!!!! CUT MORE!!!
To: HHKrepublican_2
About time. Medicaid has become a quasi-national healthcare program, as more and more people qualify for it and spending in the programs rises at astronomical rates.
Medicaid recipients often bypass paying for employer programs or their own private insurance, since the coverage is nearly free and very comprehensive.
This makes private coverage more expensive for those who have to pay for it on their own.Coverage for dependents in these programs starts at only 300% of FPL, meaning that many people you know, including the office file clerk, the grocery bagger, receptionist, etc. all qualify for it. This greatly encourages people to work part-time and not get jobs that make too much. Ironically, that's why Walmart has been taking heat; many of their employees qualify. Medicaid is the worst case senario of out of control, unaccountable government spending in the name of building a dependent class of voters.
134 posted on
11/03/2005 5:50:26 PM PST by
Wiseghy
(Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. – Ralph Waldo Emerson)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Wait a second, wait a second. I think I have something on my glasses.
There, that's better. No, no, still must be dirty. There is no way I am reading this right. *ctrl+ ctrl+ ctrl+ ctrl+*
OK, someone hacked FR and put all that up. Right?
155 posted on
11/03/2005 6:12:06 PM PST by
M203M4
To: HHKrepublican_2
How sad it is that an
increase in spending is hailed as a great achievement by many here on FR.
Conservatives can complain about liberals but their words are hollow when I read some of the replies on this thread.
Maybe FR needs to require the successful completion of a refresher course in conservative principles before posting privileges are granted or renewed.
To: HHKrepublican_2
A billion here, a billion there, before you know it, we'll be talking REAL money!
We'll get to fiscal responsibility the same way we got to the current taxpayer sinkhole.
166 posted on
11/03/2005 7:02:17 PM PST by
Killborn
(Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Cut PBS!!! It serves no purpose at all. Stop waisting tax payer money on garbage like this! Also, cut the Endowment for the Arts for crying out loud! That's nothing but unemployable liberal welfare!
To: HHKrepublican_2
I don't see these cuts as significant or laudable. It is a drop in the bucket, thrown at us to 'appease' the base, and then they'll go back to spending even more. I believe there was additional spending even in this bill. The only way to shrink the power of government is to donate to a special interest with no special interest:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php
174 posted on
11/03/2005 8:23:08 PM PST by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Did they get rid of the Alaskan bridges to nowhere?
177 posted on
11/03/2005 8:53:38 PM PST by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: HHKrepublican_2
What I don't understand is why this has to affect "the poor" or "the elderly". Over the 15 years or so, every major company in the U.S. has gone through at least one major (probably more like 3+) restructurings. Why can't there be a 10% (20%?) across the board layoff of gubmint "workers", er employees? Why has nobody ever even suggested such a thing?
180 posted on
11/03/2005 9:06:51 PM PST by
ottothedog
(Forbes 2008)
To: HHKrepublican_2
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?
To: HHKrepublican_2
$36 billion in cuts are not serious cuts in federal spending.
Congress and the Prez are out of control.
185 posted on
11/03/2005 9:28:42 PM PST by
Reagan Man
(Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
To: HHKrepublican_2
Not a real cut, probably a cut in the rate of growth or something.... or it'll be spent elsewhere
190 posted on
11/03/2005 10:24:19 PM PST by
GeronL
(Leftism is the INSANE Cult of the Artificial)
To: HHKrepublican_2
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?
191 posted on
11/03/2005 11:44:32 PM PST by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
The measure also would permit exploratory oil drilling in an Alaskan wilderness (search) area.
Smart move! Put it in a bill to cut spending! Hope it works, but it won't.
214 posted on
11/04/2005 9:25:08 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated my FR profile on Wednesday, November 2, 2005.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson