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!

[Dane]

He(Rush) was part of the problem

And I guess to you, Hillary is the solution.

[Sam Cree]

"Count me in"

Sure, me too.

The opposite of ever larger government responsibility was the concept of our founding fathers. A rather unique and novel concept, one that seems to be falling out of favor.

[Miss Marple]

It has become obvious to me that very few people discussing this bill understand what is in it, its cost, nor the longterm benefits.

Is it expensive? Yes. However, the question that should be asked is "How expensive will it be for the nation if we do nothing?"

Medicare is NOT going to be abolished. We lost that debate back in the Johnson Administration. What we are shooting for is privatization and competition, so that it is run as effectively and cheaply as possible. That is the goal of this bill.

Rush does not understand longterm goals, in my opinion. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the patience for incremental improvement, and often recommends actions which would polarize the electorate and ultimately be a disaster.

And if he is rudely sighing over the president's speech (I listened to the speech on Fox and not Rush) then he is being a big jerk.

[4CJ]

It may well be others are seeing the two political parties are indeed one and the same, just using different rhetoric...

And as usual, those that fear the loss of votes are bemoaning any potential abdications of party loyalty. Why should we vote for 'compassionate' conservatives/pubbies? We still have legalized murder abortions, we still have conservative justices being filibustered, and we have our own party spending money like there's no tomorrow.

[Dane]

As Rep. Ron Paul points out...

And Ron Paul wanted to fight osama bin ladin how?

Oh that's right with 18th century letters of marquee.

[woodyinscc]

The beachheads on Normandy were also small.

The rhetoric from the dims is this Bill is a sham, and does not go far enough. This Bill is prescient, and provides a platform, and a gateway to privatization, when the boomer's start retiring in droves. This Bill can be changed and tweaked between it's full implementation in 2010. It is better, we as Republican's maintain control of the WH. and Congress, to guide the transition to privatization. The alternative is a dim Bill over a trillion dollars, that is a real Gov. giveaway. How important is Al Gore's lock box when there is nothing to put in it. What kind of solutions are the dims going to come up with in 2010? Taxes as high as the eye can see, will be their MO.

I am against big Gov. as we all should be. This Bill, at this time is a political necessity. President Bush is beating the dims at their own game, and their squealing and outrage, are the defining proof.!

[jmc813]

And Ron Paul wanted to fight osama bin ladin how?

And this has what to do with the Medicare bill? Leave the defending of this bill up to people who can do more than use guilt-by-association arguments.

[uncbob]

And I guess to you, Hillary is the solution.

How you can make that connection from my statement renders you completely devoid of logical thought

[Dane]

Mega ditto to your reply #123.

[warchild9]

Don't hold your nose and vote. Just don't vote. It's your right.

[warchild9]

"Fixed" later? Historically, "expanded" later is more accurate.

[Dane]

And this has what to do with the Medicare bill? Leave the defending of this bill up to people who can do more than use guilt-by-association arguments

Ron Paul is a politician. He is fair game.

Excuuuuuuuse me for pointing out that Ron Paul wanted to fight the War on Terrorism with 18th century methods.

[Southack]

"Government estimates are notorious for never being accurate."

Non-government estimates are notorious for being wildly exaggerated to suit whomever is making their own argument, too.

Lets stick to facts. This bill authorizes precisely $39.5 Billion per year for each of ten years. That's a fact. If the program costs more, it would require *additional* legislation to authorize new funds. We can rail against such additional funds at that time, if such a development occurs.

But it's a completely unfair argument to claim that those potential new funds are mandatory and already built in to this current legislation. They aren't.

The funds that will be authorized by this bill are a constant $39.5 Billion per year for each of ten years. During that time Medicare gets substantially Privatized.

If $39.5 Billion per year is too much to pay for preventative medicine (i.e. drugs and checkups rather than reactive care like surgery) and a Privatized Medicare, then make that argument.

But using imaginary numbers like "Trillions" of Dollars in costs is not a fair argument, and isn't based upon the current facts at hand.

[jmc813]

Excuuuuuuuse me for pointing out that Ron Paul wanted to fight the War on Terrorism with 18th century methods.

Would you like to refute anything in the quoted I posted? You're giving off the impression that you can't and are trying to deflect the subject.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Rush does not understand longterm goals, in my opinion."

I beg to differ, Miss Marple. Comparing Dubyuh to Nixon vis a vis domestic spending could--or at least should--serve as a wake-up call fer the Bush Administration that they have floated far too far to the Left on this bedrock principle of conservatism. We are about to embark on negotiations for the Appropriations bills and--hopefully--our goal should be to enforce some financial sanity on this spending binge that Dubyuh has spear-headed for the last three years!!

"And if he is rudely sighing over the president's speech (I listened to the speech on Fox and not Rush) then he is being a big jerk."

Admittedly, that was a childish trick...but Rush is still Right when it comes to scolding Dubyuh on domestic spending, imho.

FReegards...MUD

[woodyinscc]

Outstanding Post, points out you are not prone to knee jerk reactions.

[jmc813]

Dane, please see Southack's reply #133 for an example of an intelligent and persuasive response to my post, rather than bringing up something that has noothing to do with this thread.

[Dane]

I beg to differ, Miss Marple. Comparing Dubyuh to Nixon vis a vis domestic spending could--or at least should--serve as a wake-up call fer the Bush Administration that they have floated far too far to the Left on this bedrock principle of conservatism. We are about to embark on negotiations for the Appropriations bills and--hopefully--our goal should be to enforce some financial sanity on this spending binge that Dubyuh has spear-headed for the last three years!!

And I beg to differ with you, Mud. Please show me where Nixon signed any legislation, which had the seeds of reform in Medicare. You can't, so you knee jerkingly repeat the lie that Nixon=GW, to make yourself feel good, IMO.

Dude, JMO, but you are being the poster child of NEA self-esteem.

[hchutch]

Ron Paul does not have much credibility on some matters. To be honest, I take what he says with a grain of salt.

[k2blader]

Would you say this man is lying?

His words ring truer than a glib claim that "What we are shooting for is privatization and competition, so that it is run as effectively and cheaply as possible."