Rush Calls Bush Like Nixon. Republicans cannot claim to be for small government.

Rush Live broadcast ^ | 11/25/03 | rushy

[Mark Felton]

Rush has spent the last several minutes likening Bush to Nixon. Nixon gave us OSHA and the EPA. Bush is giving us Prescription Medicine benefits for seniors.

Rush says the Republican party cannot claim to be the party of smaller government.

This sounds likme the OLD Rush of 10 years ago!

Go Get Em Rush!

[JohnGalt]

Flattery will get you everywhere, q.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I guess detox did bring the conservative back in Rush.

[Sam Cree]

" Rush throws some red meat to the far right "

Who is the far right? Those who oppose ever larger government responsibility for our lives?

[jmc813]

And show me where Nixon signed a bill with privitaztion reforms for medicare. Nixon didn't, so Rush's contention that Nixon and GW are the same is moot.

The next time you try to compare libertarians and Hillary, I'm going to bring this thread up.

[MrFreedom]

Medicare Plan Includes $1B for Immigrants
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1028452/posts?page=2

[stljoe71]

The wingnut ideologues who are ragging on Dubya are part of the death-before-electability crowd.

Who would of thunk it people on free republic quoting and supporting Molly Ivins view of the world. We are closer to hell than I thought.

[hchutch]

ANY legislation can be revisted in the future. Nothing (except the pressure form we the people) prevents Congress and the President from repealing or changing laws made in a previous Congress.

The Democrats running for President sure seem to think that the two Bush tax cuts can be revisted. If that is the case, then the same goes for this legislation as well.

If conservatives let ideological purity blind them to the need to generate results (and to win elections), then we might as well get ready to say "President Dean".

[stljoe71]

And if the left wing beachhead grows under bush what good is winning an election?

You seem to be satisfied that it grow at a modestly slower pace under a republican. Of course even that is in question as GW has made clinton look like a fiscal conservative when it comes to spending.

[Luke21]

You got it. It's about governing for the majority of Americans. FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan understood this. So does Bush.

The Republicans are a majority party, and far more likely to defend my key issues; safe streets, punishment of criminals, anti-pc, gun ownership, freedom of worship, lower taxes, and less social experimentation and dependence on looney pressure groups.

Anything else is gravy.

[Dane]

The next time you try to compare libertarians and Hillary, I'm going to bring this thread up

Go right ahead, Nixon didn't get a dime from Libertarian sugar daddy or Hillary friend, George Soros.

[Southack]

"This things going to cost Trillions..."

Why do you feel the need to exaggerate?

This bill costs $39.5 Billion per year for the next ten years (at which time Medicare is substantially privatized). That's $10 (yes, ten Dollars) per month per American.

In exchange for that $10, we get preventative medicine (Medicare currently pays only for reactive care such as surgery rather than pro-active care such as doctor checkups and medicine) and a path to Privatize the beast of Medicare.

Tossing around wildly exaggerated terms such as "Trillions" prevents honest debate of what we're paying for what we're getting, however, and can run the risk of making people focus on their emotions rather than upon cold facts.

Why would you want to do that?

[Mudboy Slim]

"Who is the far right? Those who oppose ever larger government responsibility for our lives?"

Count me in...MUD

[cake_crumb]

"Sooner or later a prescription-drug benefit was absolutely inevitable."

Agree. How many election years has Medicare reform been promised in order to get the votes of seniors and then never delivered?

IMO it's too big and the language is too vague in spots because the language hasn't been ironed out and I keep wondering just what deals were cut to get the votes of the likes of Judas Jeffords. It needs serious trimming, and if ever there was an excuse to viciously ax unecessary programs and cut government employees, this bill is it.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely against it. There's a $3,600 deductible before the prescription even kicks in, and it does make provision for partial privatization. Privatization is what's needed. Social Security privatization too. The fact that Teddy Kennedy and Tommy Daschle were railing against it it another point in it's favor.

[jmc813]

Now you're pointing out the flaws in your own logic.

[quidnunc]

stljoe71 wrote: (The wingnut ideologues who are ragging on Dubya are part of the death-before-electability crowd.) Who would of thunk it people on free republic quoting and supporting Molly Ivins view of the world. We are closer to hell than I thought.

Like Iraq, there are a lot of of dead-enders lurking about among the denizens of Free Republic.

In Iraq the dead-enders are Baathists and jihadist crazies, on Free Republic they're creatures from the black lagoon of the paleoconservative fever swamp.

[Dane]

Sooner or later a prescription-drug benefit was absolutely inevitable.

Better for you yourself rather than the other guy to get the credit, and better for to have control over the final product.

The wingnut ideologues who are ragging on Dubya are part of the death-before-electability crowd.

Very true, and you can tell who they are. They are the ones who cut off their nose to spite their face.

[Fred Mertz]

Rush finally got his thinking right.

[Southack]

Is it what you spend that bothers you, or what you get for that spending that matters?

[uncbob]

Rush says the Republican party cannot claim to be the party of smaller government.

Better late than never I guess

Callers been on him since 94 to get on the GOP but he kept saying WAIT until we have the congress and Presidency
He was part of the problem

[jmc813]

This bill costs $39.5 Billion per year for the next ten years

Government estimates are notorious for never being accurate. As Rep. Ron Paul points out...

The financial impact of this legislation on taxpayers cannot be overstated. Government projections that the drug program will cost $400 billion over the next decade cannot be trusted, as existing Medicare programs cost 4 times more than estimated when they were created. The likely cost is at least $1 trillion over 10 years, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.