Posted on 10/28/2015 5:04:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This budget deal -- and every time this subject comes up I have to point out that, well, even 25 years ago when this program started, to discuss something like the federal budget was one of the biggest mistakes you could make in terms of programming content. I mean, it was so esoteric and so boring, and it contained its own language that did not relate to people. It was instant death. You just didn't talk about the budget.
My, how things have changed. This budget deal -- and we first alerted it to you on Monday, saw a little flash news blurb from Bloomberg detailing what the House Republicans were doing, getting ready to do. And they've done it. They have crafted a budget that essentially gives nobody any reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
It is astounding what they have done, particularly when you balance it against what they've promised us they would do. They have reneged on every promise, written and oral, that they have made, beginning back in 2010 when it comes to what they would do vis-a-vis the budget, government spending overall, and how they would behave in battle with the Democrats. They've tossed it all aside.
Everything Obama wants and then some is in this budget. Raising the debt limit over $1 trillion which takes it off the table as an issue all the way through next year. The budget is also a two-year budget which takes it out of the presidential campaign which makes whoever the next president is, and the next Congress, they're saddled with this budget. I mean, every budget is technically a one-year budget. I know this, and they can make 10-year projections, five-year, what they've actually done here is try to craft a two-year budget.
And when I went through it last night and looked at it, and I went back and with the assistance of a column written by my buddy Andy McCarthy at PJMedia.com, I started boiling. I was literally infuriated. I have to tell you, folks, I am beyond able to understand the political thinking now of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, particularly as it relates to the presidential race. I can't figure it out. What they are doing makes literally and absolutely no sense. It makes no sense in dollars and cents. It makes no sense budgetarily. It makes no sense politically. They're not even an opposition party. They're not even pretending anymore to be an opposition party.
When you look at what they've done with this budget -- we'll get into some details -- basically all you need to know is whatever Obama wants, he's got. Whatever Hillary wants, she's got. Whatever you thought you were voting for in 2010 and 2014, you've been lied to, in terms of how your representatives were gonna fight the Democrats, fight spending, fight this constant bloat. We can now officially claim that the Republicans are responsible for five trillion additional new dollars added to the national debt. Spending bills originate in the Congress. The president could ask and demand and do whatever, but he can't write the bills, he can't write the laws. All he can do is sign them or veto them.
We turned over the writing of the budget to Obama and the Democrats, essentially. It wouldn't be much different if they had started the whole process and completed it. So I don't know how this helps them. I don't know how they think it helps them. I don't know why it's happening. Is this all because of the demands made by donors? I mean, that's the latest excuse we're given for everything else they're doing. "Well, the donor class, they're demanding this, and donor class is demanding amnesty, donor class is demanding nuke deal with Iran." Is what explains this budget deal, that donors are demanding all of this? Or have the Republican leadership just become a bunch of pathological actual left-wingers in the last couple years?
I don't see the difference in the current Republican House leadership. When it comes to government spending, the whole philosophy behind government spending, big government, I don't see any difference between the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership. When I look on the Democrat side I see Pelosi and Reid and everybody cheering the budget. Are they still scared to death of Obama? Do they still think that they have to show that they can work with Obama, be cooperative, let Obama have everything he wants otherwise the media's gonna call them racists?
We've got a year to go, for crying out loud, just one more year of this. And they are going to put it on paper that we get two more years of this. It's the most confounding thing. We've got one year of Obama left, but the Republican leadership in the House has passed a budget, or is about to, that will essentially give us another year of Obama in terms of philosophy on government size and spending.
Are they doing this to prove that they can be bipartisan? Do they think that's gonna help them in the presidential race? Are they doing this to show they can cooperate? Are they doing this to show that they love and support entitlements and nobody should think Republicans are gonna take anything away from them. Are they that defensive? Are they that scared? Are they that convinced the media can define them and there's nothing they can do about it so they may as well do everything the media is demanding of them so that the media will shut up and not be mean to them anymore? Is that what's going on here?
Are they hell-bent on showing their ability to cooperate, cross the aisle? They think that's helping the presidential field by doing this? Are they ambivalent? Are they unfeeling in any way about...? Folks, the blatant lies that Republicans in the House have told their voters during campaigns. All the documents, the contracts, the pledges that they wrote and signed that none of this would happen. Virtually everything they pledged not to do, they are doing in this budget deal.
Are they unconcerned about destroying the economy? Are they so secure in their own existence that they don't care what happens outside their own lives? Are they set now for the rest of their lives because of the votes that they have secured for big donors? Are they happy that in the places they live there isn't any unemployment, there isn't any real difficulty managing the cost of living?
Are they unconcerned about destroying our culture? Do you have any idea what this budget's gonna do to our culture? This culture is creating more dependence and more dependence. It's practically designed to put people on the welfare rolls. It's practically designed to tell people to stop relying on themselves and look to government for whatever you need or whatever you want. That's not who we are. But that's what this budget deal does.
The spending caps that they negotiated with Obama? They've blown those up. The one thing that they won, spending caps, they got rid of them themselves in this deal. I'm trying to understand, are they totally in debt to K Street? Do they all have jobs waiting for them on K Street? It doesn't compute here. Who are these people in the House Republican leadership? What are they? I'll tell you what I've concluded, and it's something that I have forecast before, mentioned before. We've even discussed it on this program.
I think what's going on in Washington right now -- and it isn't new, it's just more visible than it's ever been. I think there's all kinds of bipartisanship going on in Washington. I think there's all kinds of cooperation going on in Washington. I think that it's kumbaya time. I think they are linked arm in arm. I think the bipartisan project is to destroy conservatism. I think they would be happy. They would prefer... I'm talking about the Republican leadership. Not the whole membership, but the Republican leadership.
I have the idea they would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz, and that's not a feeling. I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They, as members of the inside-the-Beltway establishment, no way, no how do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House. They would much prefer Hillary. The only thing that explains this, looked at in any kind of prism of common sense, is that there is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pockmark.
The only thing that explains this: This is not good budgeting. Not only is this not conservative, it's not even Republican, even moderate Republican. This is rubber-stamp liberal Democrat budgetary philosophy. This violates every pledge and promise that they've made in election campaigns going back to 2010, repeated in 2012 during the presidential race, and repeated again in 2014. And I shall remind you word by word of some of the pledges they've made, the contracts they wrote, reminiscent of the Contract with America.
I actually think... You know the Democrats want to get rid of conservatism. They want to get rid of all opposition. That's their modus operandi. The thing here is the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, I think, wants to do the same thing. I think we're a burr on their butts. I think we're a pain in the rear to them. I think they much more resent us than they do liberal Democrats. Romney gave it all away the other day. He gave it all away when he came out -- and have you noticed how there hasn't been any reaction to that anywhere?
I have been studiously observing. Mitt Romney comes out, laments/longs for the good old days when we all get the same facts. There were only three different places you could get news America: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those were the good old days. Those were the good old days when everybody got the same news, everybody got the same facts, and it's easy to collaborate. Democrats and Republicans could work together. But now we have these insurgent, extremist right wingers in this New Media confusing everybody with different facts.
And he also did give some lip service to saying the left has their own version, but he's not concerned about them because the extremists on the left still have the same facts that the Democrat Party has. However, us? We extremists on the right. We seem to be operating with a totally different set of facts and the mainstream doesn't want to deal with it, and the establishment doesn't want to deal with it.
So Romney comes out and sides with the people who called him a liar about paying his taxes, who told everybody he hated women and hated his employees and allowed them to get cancer and didn't care -- and put the dog on the roof of the station wagon -- and much more incendiary stuff designed to destroy his career and his reputation, and that's who he thinks his friends are. So Romney let it out of the bag with this idea that the good old days, you have to go back 25, 27, 28 years to find them. (paraphrased) "Yeah, everybody got the same news!
"Everybody got the same facts! There weren't any controversy day to day over what was what. We could collaborate and get along and everything was fine and dandy and hunky-dory. Yeah. Now we can't do." There hasn't been a... I haven't found any reaction to that anywhere. Have you, Mr. Snerdley? Have you seen it? (interruption) Not a peep. And to me it was the biggest news because it confirmed long-held suspicions. But there hasn't been a repeat of that. There hasn't been a repeat. There hasn't been anybody. I have not seen it other than where it originally appeared, in Breitbart.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, back to the budget deal for just one or two things here. I mentioned at the outset that the Republican leadership has violated practically every promise they made to voters in 2010, 2012, 2014 about how they would behave if they were elected. And what they would do to stop Obama, stop the Democrats, stop the spending. One of the things that Boehner promised was three full days, 72 hours to read all legislation before voting on it.
Not here. This is being rammed through. This is going to have to happen today. It has to happen before Paul Ryan becomes Speaker so his fingerprints are not on it. This is supposedly Boehner's gift to Paul Ryan, a clean Speakership with no budget battles in the immediate future, the budget's done, no arguments with the Democrats. The conservatives out in the country can't do anything to you because it's a done deal, no threats of government shutdown. Boehner thinks this is his present to Ryan as new Speaker, a clean slate when it comes to the budget.
But to make it happen, they have to violate the promise and the pledge that Boehner and the leadership made. If the vote happens before 11:36 p.m. tomorrow, then Boehner's pledge would be violated. It's 144 pages. It raises the debt limit by a trillion dollars. Why does it take 144 pages to do that? But there are many more promises that were made and pledges that were signed way back when.
Let's talk about a Pledge to America, a little pamphlet the Republican leadership put out. It had all kinds of pictures of Boehner and Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, other Republican leaders. And this Pledge to America began thus: "An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
"An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose."
Well, we all read that, those of us who did, we all heard that, those of us who did, "Man, these guys get it. These guys get it. They're gonna go in there and they're gonna stop this stuff. They understand all this elites are implementing things with executive action. The will of the people is being thwarted. Spending is out of control." We bought it. We elected 'em in droves. By the way, this pledge was made when all they had was the House. And this pledge did not say anything about we must have the Senate before we could do any of this. That came later.
They were making these promises when all the Republicans controlled were the House of Representatives, folks. And when they won the House of Representatives, that's when they said, "We can't do any more. We need the Senate." But yet they made these promises when they didn't control the Senate. The Republicans in this Pledge to America promised to do a lot of things to address this crisis. "They said they had 'A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust.' They committed to change the abuses of Democratic leadership, who had 'consolidated authority, abusing the letter and spirit of the House rules to get the outcome desired, while ignoring voices of the American people, the minority, and even dissenters within [its] own party,'" and they were gonna make the Democrats pay for that. It's right from the Pledge to America.
When you hear that now, if you happen to read that now, how do you not snicker or get enraged? When you remember all of the complex, voluminous, endless bills, great consequence, that would no longer be dumped on members, they'd be given no meaningful opportunity to read the legislation, much less propose changes. Everything they pledged just kind of drifted away by the wayside when reality set in.
Further from the pledge: "We recognize that if we are truly committed to addressing the American people’s highest priorities, the House of Representatives must operate differently -- differently from the way the Democrats do now, and differently from the way Republicans did in the past. Change begins at home." This is what they promised to win the House. And here's the requirement to read the bill part of the pledge: "We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on."
Can't blame Republican voters for eating this up. It's exactly what needed to be done. It's exactly what they promised to do. So they were elected and they gained control of the House. And then we began to hear, "Wait. We forgot to tell you something. None of this can be done 'til we have the Senate." But this just scratches the surface on pledges and promises which were made.
Yup, but we have to face the truth as it is. Because the liberals allowed to push leftism on FR won’t.
Even notice how childlike the logic of an FR liberal is? “Mitt told me he was a conservative. So I voted for a conservative! You didn’t!!!!”
I can’t for the life of me why conservatism as a movement is so screwed up with such deep thinkers populating it.
Stupidity or paid trolls. Or stupid paid trolls.
Do you remember that fella, I’m forgetting the name, he wrote about Republican history. It was OK for a time until he reached the point that anything Republican was good — anything. I reminded him that the GOP nominated, and elected, the only person ever to successfully run for Congress on the Communist Party line, Vito Marcantonio of NYC. I asked him if that was a good thing to celebrate...
...Of course, I never got a reply from him over his perpetual pimping of all things ‘Publican. He eventually got the ZOT.
Some of both no doubt.
Nope, that guy rings no bells for me. Plenty like him though. No sin unforgiven. No liberalism that cannot be ignored to ‘win’.
Charlie Sheen was a Republican. Who knew?
I like Virgil. He’s a fine gentleman. However, when we debated, it became clear that he retained some of his Democrat views, primarily in terms of this support of New Deal and Great Society programs.
I think it’s great that you didn’t vote for the most liberal governor in history, though. And I greatly appreciate your kind words. Thanks.
People that love their country do not give cash and pass laws that kill it’s future outright. Nor do they thwart the will of their own voters by lying to them as easily as breathing. Nor do they side laughing with Ted Kennedy.
If you call that loving ones country, you have no idea what love means.
“And I hasten to point out that no less than our Esteemed Founder Jim Robinson reluctantly “
And on that day I and others told him he would regret the choice.
Later he made a post saying it was a mistake.
Norm, I clearly stated that Romney was far from my first choice, and laughing it up with Ted Kennedy earned him no points with me. I maintain that the priority in 2012 was to get Obama out of the White House. We were presented with a flawed tool to do so. Those who understood that there was only one political choice and chance to stop Obama, voted for that flawed ticket of Romney & Ryan.
We can debate ‘love’ all night and all weekend, but I don’t believe that Romney hates America, he is certainly one RINO sonuvabitch, but I don’t buy the concept that he hates America like Obama does.
Sorry, but it's true.
Hard for many pols to break the habit of seemingly popular programs that have become too expensive to perpetuate, but it will have to be done before long because the money is all gone.
As for your execrable major-party opponent (excluding Zero), there’s no way I could’ve spent 6 years (as of 2012) railing against him, his agenda, his character (or rather lack thereof) and the like and turned around and supported or voted for him. It was bad enough in 2008 (and I have since repudiated that vote due to McCain’s unfortunate longevity), but that was the final straw. I have no intention of feeding the beast known as the Republican wing of the bipartisan big gubmint cabal. It has got to be killed.
Agreed.
You just reminded me. I ordered the fruit juice.
He;s not a choice period unless you ignore every ounce of conservative belief in you to choose him. I don’t GAF what gate he enters in the horse race. Voting for that guy is or was flat out a mistake. Barry isn’t ‘worse’. He’s evil in a different form but no less evil.
He did not win and we have his record as Governor to guide us if he had. That state is STILL underwater from his actions. He did and does profit from the laws he created to assist murderers. He IS anti gun. He is no friend of the military. NOTHING about him is good, right, just, moral or desirable. Politically or as a human.
Amen.
You again justify magnificently each and every vote cast for you including my own.
If all that Romney had to do to get the votes of such people was to not be Obozo, then why did they bother voting at all?
Romney: pro-abortion and actually profited from the grisly business of abortion by disposing of the little corpses for money to prevent the embarrassing photographic truth from being disseminated from the dumpsters behind the mills. Enemy of reserving marriage to non-perverts, gun grabber, foreign policy wimp, enemy of the military and its veterans, sees everything through the prism of Muffie's trust fund, exporter of American jobs, appointer of rank radical leftists and social revolutionaries to every available Taxachusetts judgeship, employer of undocumented Democrats of one kind to run his campaign and of the more customary kind to do his gardening CHEAP. What could he do to lose the votes of the love slaves of the GOP-E?
What can NEVER be justified is any person calling himself or herself an American, a patriot, much less a conservative, and voting for Romney OR Obozo.
And, it can never be repeated often enough, as Finny often posts, we have only the option of voting FOR a candidate. There is no mechanism for voting AGAINST one.
If and when this nation is destroyed it will be due to those who lack the courage or the clarity to vote the traditional morality of this country. I am particularly partial to the life's work of Blessed Fulton J. Sheen and appreciate the quote you included in your post and the book it came from.
As always, God bless you and yours!
“And, it can never be repeated often enough, as Finny often posts, we have only the option of voting FOR a candidate. There is no mechanism for voting AGAINST one. “
That one thing is the cause of so many problems. It is the easiest thing in the world to say I voted Against” and justify it in ones mind.
It’s a protection mechanism. It’s kicking the can. It’s CYA. It’s a lot of things. But what it isn’t is true.
You don’t vote against the gay agenda by casting your vote FOR the father of Gay MArriage in America.
You do not vote against, or to end the global warming scam by casting a vote FOR a strong advocate.
You don’t vote against, end or keep abortion minimized by voting FOR a guy that made the support and profit from abortion a cornerstone of his record in office and business.
You don’t vote against lying in politics by voting FOR the biggest two faced liar the GOP ever produced.
But all that aside, all the above is meaningless because as you said and Finny has stated repeatedly, There is no PHYSICAL against box on the ballot for President. Whatever you check it’s FOR. The test is mental masturbation and justification. There is no arguement to be made. There isn’t one. Period. And to argue that “Well I FEEL...” is just liberalism. There is no “Feel”. There is FOR.
To paraphrase Yoda, There is For or nothing. There is no against. No idiot in FLA will sit there with a magnifying glass determining the intent of the voter. You voted for one, For the other, for someone else, or not at all. But you voted FOR
F O R
F
O
R
F
O
R
Any way you slice it.
For.
It could be demonstrated that Romney loves this country????? No, it cannot because he does not, like his execrable daddy and mommy before him.
What convinced you? Was it his heroic service in Viet Nam? Oh, that's right, he served in Paris dodging the draft as a "missionary." which is something he could have done AFTER military service. Parisian cuisine beats K-rations anytime, right?
Was it his steadfast protection of the jobs of American workers? Oh, that's right he is a major broker of jobs to places like Bangladesh and the mere middle class and working class who actually fight and die in our wars and for our country, unlike anything named Romney, be da*ned so long as Muffie's trust fund is fattened by resulting "profits" from impoverishing his fellow Americans.
Well, he is a member (and to their shame an elite member) of the Church of Latter Day Saints. He must be pro-life and pro-marriage as a bishop of that church, right? Oh no, Willard got a pass from church leadership (to their everlasting shame) on both publicly funded abortion on demand and perversion posing as marriage of the fudgepackers. I wrote this paragraph as one who has often defended the LDS here and I am a Catholic. LDS has a tremendous number of wonderful decent people who are among the most personally moral in our nation, but NOT anyone in clan Romney. I disagree with their theology but admire their morality based on Mormons I have known.
Just as Kerry, Pelosi, the late Kennedy the Last (hopefully although his son and namesake has been elected to Connecticut's State Senate), Rosa DeLauro, Patty Murray and so many, many others ought to be summarily excommunicated publicly by their respective bishops, so Romney should be cast in the outer darkness and excommunicated by LDS.
Oh, so Romney called Putin and Russia our adversary? Be still my beating heart over his extraordinary courage in giving you the tiniest of fig leaves. If he were POTUS, the POS would have done absolutely NOTHING but conclude new trade deals with Putin so that American donor class of corrupt greedocrats like himself could get their piece of the Russian slave labor market.
And finally, hindsight has nothing to do with it. Finny and Norm Lenhart and I and many others here were quite explicit that we were not voting as you did for the single sorriest excuse for a GOP candidate in party history. As you can see from this year's debates, the GOP-E may have learned their lesson in POTUS nominations and El Jebbie is going nowhere but home to Florida. Money can't buy him votes as it did for Romney in the halls of blind party first voting in "GOP" primaries. Next up to be purged: Ryano, McConnell, McCarthy, Cornyn, Corker, LAMAR!!!, Cockroach and their ilk. The we can concentrate on those who are flat out liars when posing as "conservative."
Get used to it! Rule or ruin!
You talk a brave game now that we did the heavy lifting of destroying Mittens' candidacy. The fact is that you voted FOR Romney and all that he represents and all he had done and all of his unmitigated evil. Don't bother rationalizing it now when it is too late for you to have served your country by voting FOR a worthy candidate like Eternal Vigilance.
A good analogy (assuming that Romney has even a sliver of desirability over Obozo) would be as follows. You marry a woman who trusts that you will be a worthy husband and father. Thereafter, you cheat on her 499 times during the "marriage." BUT a neighbor has cheated on his wife 500 times. You and your neighbor both pass AIDS to your innocent unsuspecting wives. Nonetheless and therefore you are morally superior to your neighbor?????? If that makes sense to you, then giving you the benefit of the doubt that Romney had even ONE meaningful advantage over Obozo, your vote for Romney was somehow justified?????? NOT!
Talking dirty (one RINO sonuvabitch) does not improve your logic even though he is that, at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.