am i surprised? no.
am i disgusted? yes.

from MoveOn PAC:

Quote :

"Dear MoveOn member, Last week, congressional Republicans responded to Hurricane Katrina by proposing to cut nearly a trillion dollars from vital national services, like health care for the poor and elderly, student loans, Amtrak, and eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (again!).1 Republican leaders in Congress are now gauging the public's response to see if they can get away with their plan. We need to show them the answer is "no." The cost of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, while huge, is far less than what President Bush has given away in tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent.2 National crises like Hurricanes Rita and Katrina are times for all Americans to stick together and put in our fair share. So today we're launching an urgent petition to Congress to fully rebuild the Gulf Coast and pay for it by ending Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, not by slashing vital services that Americans need. If we can gather a quarter million signatures this week, we can show them that this destructive plan just won't fly. Please sign today: http://www.political.moveon.org/rebuild/?id=6042-3365462-DqN19cM7djC7qHTctFxSAQ&t=3 The Republican proposal, titled "Operation Offset," was authored by the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 influential members of Congress, including powerful committee chairs and members of the Republican leadership.3 The proposal starts with support from at least these 100 representatives, and they are looking to quickly build momentum. A full reconstruction of the Gulf Coast region is generally estimated to cost around $200 billion.4 We could more than meet this cost by rolling back Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for just the wealthiest one percent of the country, which would save us an estimated $327 billion.5 "Operation Offset," however, calls for an astounding $949 billion dollars in cuts over 10 years to vital national services.6—almost five times the full cost of reconstruction. To further put that in perspective, it's also more than 4 times what we've spent in Iraq.7 This plan is not about "offsetting," or rebuilding—it's about exploiting this crisis to push their longstanding goals for America. As conservative movement leader Grover Norquist has often put it, the goal is to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."8 This proposal is their latest attempt to drown the public sector. The excess of the Republicans' proposed cuts is almost unbelievable. You can read the full proposal here: http://www.political.moveon.org/images/operation_offset/operation_offset.htm?id=6042-3365462-DqN19cM7djC7qHTctFxSAQ&t=4 Here are just some of the most egregious cuts: $225 billion cut from Medicaid, the last-resort health insurance program for the very poor. $200 billion cut from Medicare, the health care safety net for the elderly and the disabled. $25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control $6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children $7.5 billion cut from programs to fight global AIDS $5.5 billion to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $3.6 billion cut to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities $8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students. $2.5 billion cut from Amtrak $2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative $417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency $4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program And the list goes on and on. Which and how many of these cuts move forward in Congress depends largely on the public response this week. As the reconstruction begins our country faces a basic question: Will we respond to Katrina by banding together to solve national problems, or by helping the wealthy and powerful cut and run while those left behind fend for ourselves? The radical Republicans have spoken up loud and clear with their answer, and we must respond with ours. Please sign today: http://www.political.moveon.org/rebuild/?id=6042-3365462-DqN19cM7djC7qHTctFxSAQ&t=5 Thanks for all that you do. –Ben, Tanya, Matt, Justin and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Monday, November 26, 2005"

9/26/2005 4:49:20 PM

good

the government spends way too much money on these programs anyways. half of them shouldn't even be the government's responsibility anyhow

9/26/2005 4:52:40 PM

^ I agree.

9/26/2005 4:55:15 PM

everything else kind of falls along partisan lines whether or not you support the cuts, but this:

Quote :

"$25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control"

that is just asinine - particularly in light of the looming avian flu crisis

9/26/2005 4:56:49 PM

Oh yes, that terrifying avian flu.

How many times have we been freaked out by some disease from Asia that ends up doing...nothing? Too goddamn many.

9/26/2005 5:06:50 PM

i think the government should cut itself

i mean how much are we spending on just them existing

9/26/2005 5:10:58 PM

Quote :

"from MoveOn PAC: "

Quote :

"Dear MoveOn member"

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:




now...

1. FINALLY, Republicans at least making a step towards acting like Republicans again.
2. I've been hearing a lot of Democrats bitch about reckless fiscal policies of the Bush Administration...massive deficit spending, not vetoing any spending bills, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree.

But how are you going to scream bloody monetary murder for years, then bitch when they make spending cuts?

Quote :

"$2.5 billion cut from Amtrak"

Good. Fuck Amtrak. Corporate welfare pig, and doesn't really offer much of a usable service. they can be cheaper and faster than driving SOMETIMES, but only if they actually have a train going when and where you want to go...and sometimes they're nearly as expensive as flying, but slower than driving.

Quote :

"$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program And the list goes on and on. "

I though the War On Drugs was an exercise in futility, anyway?

(I agree with that sentiment to some degree. I have NO DOUBT that there is plenty of fat to be trimmed on that budget.)

Quote :

"$417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency"

Good. I want nothing but the best for minorities, but what do we need that agency for? minorities are big boys and big girls just like non-minorities. if we're all the same other than a few minor cosmetic features, what do we need that agency for? plus, 417 million is a drop in the bucket, anyway.

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 6:16 PM. Reason : MOST EGREGIOUS, my ass.]

9/26/2005 6:06:57 PM

Quote :

"eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting"

PBS sucks

9/26/2005 6:14:37 PM

LEGALIZE POT

9/26/2005 6:17:39 PM

^^ Again, I agree.

I would like to add that the Federal gov't doesn't need to be spending our money to fight GLOBAL AIDS. Further, the Federal gov't doesn't need to be spending public money on "the arts." These two things should be funded by private parties, not the Federal gov't.

Now, I don't fully agree with spending that cut money on rebuilding the Gulf... I think they should just cut the damn spending. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that needs increased funding is the guarding of our southern border.

Now, if they would just eliminate all aid to Israel and all the other countries we send money to, I'll be one happy camper!

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 6:44 PM. Reason : I just have a particular problem with our aid to Israel. But yeah, other countries too.]

9/26/2005 6:38:57 PM

Quote :

"The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that needs increased funding is the guarding of our southern border."

Goddamn idiot xenophobes.

9/26/2005 7:12:34 PM

Quote :

"How many times have we been freaked out by some disease from Asia Hurricane terror plot that ends up doing...nothing? Too goddamn many."

goddamn the past is forgotten quick.

Quote :

"the government spends way too much money on these programs anyways. half of them shouldn't even be the government's responsibility anyhow"

Such as:

$6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children
$7.5 billion cut from programs to fight global AIDS
$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students.
$2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program

DA you must be more a Liberterian than I remembered.

Quote :

"(I agree with that sentiment to some degree. I have NO DOUBT that there is plenty of fat to be trimmed on that budget.)"

Yeah there is, in New Orleans. Where do you people think shit is cut from? From where you can see it in prominate schooling? Yeah fuck right.

Do i believe there's a "conspiracy" to fuck the minorities? No. I just know how politicans and their flock can get away with shit.

Quote :

"I would like to add that the Federal gov't doesn't need to be spending our money to fight GLOBAL AIDS. Further, the Federal gov't doesn't need to be spending public money on "the arts." These two things should be funded by private parties, not the Federal gov't. "

Ah yes the days of ole'. Where you couldn't get AIDS unless you were black and poor and in Africa. And where art was only the trade of the weathly and upper class of America. Fuck why did we leave Europe again?

compassionate conservatives what what!!??

9/26/2005 7:54:20 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Dear MoveOn member" "

it's funny because i have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

9/26/2005 8:20:51 PM

Quote :

"goddamn the past is forgotten quick."

Sorry, I just don't see the government's job as preparing feverishly for every possible thing that could go wrong. Why aren't we spending billions a year on making sure the Earth's poles don't reverse themselves? On shooting down asteroids that may never come? On fighting off the goddamn aliens?

9/26/2005 8:33:05 PM

Quote :

"$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students. "

this one means alot to me and probably some others on here. fuck you.

i sick of this "oh, it doesnt affect me, so screw it" attitude. "oh, im not poor/dont watch PBS/dont get sick/dont like regulations or drug programs WAAH WAAH WAAH I NEED MORE MONEY B/C I CANT BUY ENOUGH SHIT I DONT NEED".

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2005 8:35:27 PM

Just because it means a lot to you, doesn't mean it belongs.

If there were a $4.5 billion annual fund for the Department of Giving GrumpyGOP $4.5 Billion, it would mean a lot to me, but I couldn't honestly expect you to want to preserve it as a result.

9/26/2005 8:39:55 PM

^youre joking, right? gee, i didnt know i was the only student needing grad school loans that doesnt have a full ride or enough family money and/or money from a job that doesnt pay low wages.

that was a really stupid response if youre not joking

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2005 8:42:03 PM

Matthew Lesko is gonna be pissed

9/26/2005 8:42:57 PM

Well how many people does it have to be before there's too few of them to warrant a program, Luigi? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Two?

The Federal Government doesn't have any place handing you money to go to college, no matter how many of you there are.

9/26/2005 8:44:26 PM

^im guessing you or your family had enough money to pay the $20,000 a year for your schooling w/o any government sudsidation (in-state tuition, loans, grants, etc) b/c all that moneys gotta come from somewhere (ie: taxpayers)



[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2005 8:48:59 PM

If you cant afford to go to school then dont go! no one else should pay for it


so you cant afford it? you dont have the money in your bank account? cry me a river!! so work for a semester then go to school for a semester. whatever you have to do!!! i dont have any loans and i work 40 hours a week so i can pay for school. there is no reason you cant do the same.

9/26/2005 8:53:27 PM

If State governments want to offer you loans, that's their baby. States deal with education, at least in theory.

Or you could just get private loans, or work-study, or a job, or the grades for a scholarship, or any other number of things, not sponsored by the Federal government, that could help you pay for college. Will some of those things make your life more difficult than it could otherwise be? Yes. But the purpose of the Federal government is not to spread flower petals on the path in front of you and make everything as easy as possible.

My ability or inability to pay doesn't enter into the matter, either. You don't have to be personally affected by something for your opinion on it to be valid. Yeah, my parents managed to save up for college. When they had kids they planned for that little contingency. Maybe yours did to, and something came up and screwed with your plans. Sorry. But, again, it is not the IRS's job to extort money out of me to kiss your bruise and make it all better.

9/26/2005 8:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Good. Fuck Amtrak. Corporate welfare pig, and doesn't really offer much of a usable service. they can be cheaper and faster than driving SOMETIMES, but only if they actually have a train going when and where you want to go...and sometimes they're nearly as expensive as flying, but slower than driving."

do you even have a clue why it costs so fucking much to ride Amtrak? because it doesn't get nearly as subsidized as both AIR and ROAD means of travel.

Quote :

"In fiscal 2005, the federal subsidy to Amtrak was $1.2 billion, which is what Bush spends in six days in Iraq. $1.2 billion to support Amtrak is far less than 1% of the 2006 Defense Department budget. "

since 1970, the gov't has subsidized $13 billion to Amtrak. The same amount the gov't has given to airlines since sept. 11th. yet, somehow, Amtrak is sucking up so much money.

you realize that the gov't loses money on the interstates and highways, too, right? if they want to cut the budget, cut the fucking pork.

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 10:01 PM. Reason : dfdf a]

9/26/2005 9:59:57 PM

theDuke already hit the nail on the head earlier, especially when put in context w/ Excoriator's comment about things falling along party lines:

Quote :

"1. FINALLY, Republicans at least making a step towards acting like Republicans again. 2. I've been hearing a lot of Democrats bitch about reckless fiscal policies of the Bush Administration...massive deficit spending, not vetoing any spending bills, etc. I wholeheartedly agree. But how are you going to scream bloody monetary murder for years, then bitch when they make spending cuts?"

The long and the short of this email from MoveOn.org is this:

Quote :

"A full reconstruction of the Gulf Coast region is generally estimated to cost around $200 billion.4 We could more than meet this cost by rolling back Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for just the wealthiest one percent of the country, which would save us an estimated $327 billion.5 "

Their whole argument is not "OMFG HE'S CUTTING PROGRAMS!!!" Its "OMFG REPEAL THE TAX CUTS!!! OMFG!!!" They just use all this party-line bullshit about funding certain programs as their cover.

This thread is OVER

9/26/2005 10:59:09 PM

^ the reason they want to repeal the tax cuts is so they can pay for those same programs. what's the difference?

---

Quote :

"i sick of this "oh, it doesnt affect me, so screw it" attitude."

yep

Quote :

"do you even have a clue why it costs so fucking much to ride Amtrak? because it doesn't get nearly as subsidized as both AIR and ROAD means of travel."

yep. and it would be great if we had a well developed passenger rail system, but for that to happen, it needs the government to seriously jump-start it. the private sector won't do it because they don't see any immediate economic benefit, but it could certainly be a good thing in the future.

Quote :

"Matthew Lesko is gonna be pissed"

ahahahahahaha

9/26/2005 11:22:42 PM

^^ actually, it's about the proposal to cut programs AND about repealing tax cuts.

i'd be pretty upset if fewer elderly, disabled, and poor people were able to receive health care while the wealthiest 1% got to stuff more money in their pockets.

it's a humanitarian issue more than anything else. just like paying taxes to fund national defense is looking out for the well-being of the nation as a whole, having properly funded programs in place that safeguard basic medical care works toward everyone's benefit.

9/26/2005 11:31:18 PM

Quote :

"i sick of this "oh, it doesnt affect me, so screw it" attitude. "oh, im not poor/dont watch PBS/dont get sick/dont like regulations or drug programs WAAH WAAH WAAH I NEED MORE MONEY B/C I CANT BUY ENOUGH SHIT I DONT NEED"."

Just saw this, and I love that it's now the government job to tell us what we do and don't need to buy with the money we earn.

9/26/2005 11:35:04 PM

cookiepuss, how did you do in math class?

The airlines in this country carry millions of people every day, meanwhile Amtrak carries millions of people every year. Yet, you want to complain that the two have received comparable amounts of money!?!? a dollar given to the airlines appears to be drastically more efficient when compared to Amtrak.

True, it is a waste to give money to the airlines. But it that much worse to give the money to Amtrak.

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 11:36 PM. Reason : And Luigi is an complete blithering idiot, for the reasons stated by others ]

9/26/2005 11:35:40 PM

Yeah, rail travel has been worthless in this country for quite a while. Trains consistently crash more than planes, which carry more people faster and farther and safer. Whether they should or not, people in this country aren't going to start traveling it by train. Stick to metro systems in larger cities and cut commuter rail traffic down to the bare minimum.

9/26/2005 11:38:14 PM

Quote :

"Just saw this, and I love that it's now the government job to tell us what we do and don't need to buy with the money we earn."

if our buying habits reside solely within the realm of self-interest, which completely works against the notion of creating an egalitarian society, maybe the governnment should be in the business of telling us how to spend SOME of our money, in the interest of creating a better union.

9/26/2005 11:47:29 PM

Actually, I think the future is going to be either vacume-tunnelled mag-lev trains (less likely) or sub-orbital flights.
<please recognize I'm making shit up about the future, so take it as such>
existing aircraft technology is remarkably efficient, but limited to below Mach 1 flight. Travelling in space would work, with the obviously caviats.

My favorite alternative, probably because it is the least likely, involves building air-tight tubes for mag-lev trains to run inside, allowing the air to be pumped out eliminating air-resistance. This would make the track's power issues far more feasible because of the increased efficiency, perhaps even allowing the train to be self powered. This would also eliminate the sound barrier (assuming a sufficient vacume).

Not like it matters, it'll never happen, just typing...

9/26/2005 11:48:45 PM

Quote :

"since 1970, the gov't has subsidized $13 billion to Amtrak. The same amount the gov't has given to airlines since sept. 11th"

these are not comparable amounts of money.

[Edited on September 26, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : timing]

9/26/2005 11:49:51 PM

just build a tunnel straight through the earth and coast

pair that with futuristic zero friction bearings and you dont even need to brake... you will safely come to a stop at your final destination

9/26/2005 11:51:16 PM

Quote :

"How many times have we been freaked out by some disease from Asia that ends up doing...nothing?"

i wonder if this is related to the fact that we have a top notch CDC

i'm not trolling, i'm actually wondering if there is a relation

9/27/2005 12:04:37 AM

more liberal crying

what a joke

is there anything good in any of these programs

9/27/2005 12:07:22 AM

THE BIG GIRL

9/27/2005 12:21:43 AM

^im sorry that your leftie brain cant come up with a real argument

9/27/2005 12:22:50 AM

Quote :

"which completely works against the notion of creating an egalitarian society"

Whoah, there, Vladmir, I wasn't aware that we were in the business of creating egalitarian societies.

Quote :

"i wonder if this is related to the fact that we have a top notch CDC"

I would say so, but I think most of it is that these diseases aren't even that bad in Asia. SARS was a joke -- how many people did it kill? Out of how many Asians? Yeah. I rest my case.

9/27/2005 12:39:01 AM

^^fuck republicans
is that real enough?

if you can't see the value in subsidized grad school loans, the CDC, drug prevention programs for our schools, feeding poor children, and helping find a way to replace our fuel addiction, you're dumber than i ever imagined

ps
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/5-09-22SeniorsPay4Katrina.htm
shows how like 70% of the initial cost is on the backs of senior citizens

who i guess the republicans figure only have one or two more elections in them anyways
and its not like an 80 year old would go democrat, no matter how much the right fucks them....

i fucking hate republicans for reasons like this

if you want to cut a program, just try and cut it

don't try and paint it like you have to do this to pay for the hurricane
i didn't see any cuts when dubya needed to go to war

well, yeah i did
tax cuts

9/27/2005 12:41:07 AM

^heh

9/27/2005 12:45:28 AM

Quote :

"the reason they want to repeal the tax cuts is so they can pay for those same programs. what's the difference?"

Actually, no. The reason they bitch about those programs is to try and give themselves a basis for saying we should repeal the tax cuts. And the fact that they point out typically liberal programs from which Dubya is cutting funding only goes to further that point. They aren't pointing out any important things which are being cut that would be viewed as important by both sides of the aisle. They are only pointing out libbie projects. Thus, their argument is either their normal OMFG DUBYA AINT LIBERAL (well no shit, sherlock) or OMFG REPEAL THE TAX CUTS!!! And the latter is more or less OMFG DUBYA AINT LIBERAL!!!

thus, as I claimed earlier, THREAD OVER

9/27/2005 12:57:24 AM

if only those tax cuts hadn't come while we were starting a fucking quagmire of a war we "libbies" might not harp on them as much

9/27/2005 1:00:16 AM

THABIGL:

Quote :

" more liberal crying ... what a joke ... is there anything good in any of these programs"

(sic)

Liberals crying? Don't the Repubicans even listen to their own party? This is curtesy of the Washington Times:

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. 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. "

They can't have it both ways ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 1:03 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

9/27/2005 1:01:43 AM

Quote :

"Whoah, there, Vladmir, I wasn't aware that we were in the business of creating egalitarian societies."

social equality is outlined in the declaration of independence.

9/27/2005 1:22:58 AM

social equality =/= government taking money away from people because it knows how to spend it better than they do

social equality = everyone having the same basic rights and opportunities.

9/27/2005 1:26:44 AM

^ including basic health care . . . the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing.

cutting funding for medicare and medicaid threatens all three--no life, no liberty, no happiness.

9/27/2005 1:30:23 AM

oh, but those poor people should have thought about that before they decided to go be poor, right guys?

9/27/2005 1:40:54 AM

Quote :

"it's funny because i have no idea what it's supposed to mean. "

it's supposed to mean that MoveOn is a fucking retarded group, and you get the big, fat eyeroll for being a member.

Quote :

"just like paying taxes to fund national defense is looking out for the well-being of the nation as a whole, having properly funded programs in place that safeguard basic medical care works toward everyone's benefit. "

is anyone defending that? not in this thread, as far as i remember seeing.

Quote :

"if our buying habits reside solely within the realm of self-interest, which completely works against the notion of creating an egalitarian society, maybe the governnment should be in the business of telling us how to spend SOME of our money, in the interest of creating a better union. "

no. the government is at its best when it leaves me alone as much as possible. that's the American Way.

Quote :

"Don't the Repubicans even listen to their own party?"

the Republican Party isn't exactly overflowing with fiscal conservatives these days.

Quote :

"social equality is outlined in the declaration of independence"

yeah, social equality...not financial equality.


and i just realized something...the left is always saying "we just can't stand the social conservatives in the GOP. you libertarianish types aren't that bad."

but what is actually going on is that there AREN'T enough libertarianish Republicans in government to speak of. deep down, most of you probably aren't any more comfortable with people like me than you are with the Religious Right crowd.

which further blows my mind about how Sen. McCain enjoys such widespread support, but that's another issue altogether.

i hope some of these cuts go through. more than that, i hope maybe we're seeing the beginnings of a revival of fiscal conservativism.

9/27/2005 1:54:57 AM

as eisenhower once said:

its better to be liberal when it comes to people

9/27/2005 1:58:00 AM

The Declaration of Independence, first of all, does not lay out any law. The Constitution decides what happens and what doesn't.

Secondly and more importantly, the D of I only gaurantees that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That is to say, the government cannot normally or broadly take those things away. You'll notice my wording and attempt to attack it, but remember, you're the one arguing in favor of taking huge amounts of my money away -- money that certainly affects my happiness, somewhat affects my liberty, and may well affect my ability to live.

As long as the government doesn't kill me, doesn't restrict my actions any more than necessary for public order, or keep me from having fun, it's doing exactly what it promised to do.

If I get sick and die for want of health care, the government did not kill me. Nobody killed me. The government has only as much responsibility as every other entity on the planet that could have offered money to save me but didn't. Nepalese goatherd with a life's savings of $100? He could've donated that and saved me, but he didn't. That insensitive bastard must not love equality. Sell your car and you probably could have covered the whole life-saving procedure, but you didn't. Fuck you, man. Don't you value my life? You and the goatherd could've saved me by robbing a bank properly. The least you could've done is try. And the government could have robbed 300 million people to accomplish the same. You're telling me one of these is more responsible than the others?

9/27/2005 2:00:21 AM