White House Throws Principle Out Window (Rush Limbaugh)

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 10, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

White House Throws Principle Out Window

June 10, 2003

We spent the first hour of Monday's program on the idea that we're going to extend the child tax credit to families that don't pay taxes. Many of you told me that I was making a huge mistake opposing this. If you think you're conservatives, you have a long way to go, because what some of you people were saying is not conservative at all. It's purely political.

However, I have to hand it to you people. You were right in one sense. The White House is leaning on reluctant Republican leaders in the House to act fast on making millions of low-income families (who don't pay taxes) eligible for the 400 dollar per child tax rebates already in the works for middle-income parents. Ari Fleischer said the president's advice to the House Republicans is to pass it, and to send it to him so he can sign it.

The bottom line is the White House wants this and they want it now. They want these people who don't pay taxes to be given the child care exemption of $600 up to $1,000. Principle is out the window, and political calculation is the coin of the realm. Once again illustrating that, but for this program, no one is talking about core conservative principles out there.

by Rush Limbaugh

[sarasmom]

They actually pay NO federal taxes in that particular tax bracket, for the most part, if they have child(ren).

I qualified for EIC one year.I have always done my own taxes, since I own no property, and have no trust fund or dividends to factor in.

I was shocked to find not only was my income tax liability reduced to almost nothing,with the EIC, my "refund" was more than the total of all payroll taxes withheld for the year.About $400.00 more.I actually went to a tax assistance center for the first time in my life because I could not believe such a thing was possible and I was sure I must be making a mistake somewhere.!

Like I said before, I only qualified for EIC once.The next year, after a raise and some 1099 spiffs,that insane situation was never repeated.

While I was borderline for recieving this "rebate" anyway, and under what I understood the original plan to be, would not have gotten the full $400.00 advance rebate,I was happy that the full $1000.00 child tax credit was being advanced for next year.The $400.00 would not have zero balanced my last years FICA tax liability.

And yes, I pay taxes.
No, I do not think I "deserved" that wildly unreal "tax refund" when I was eligable for that EIC.But since I spent many years as a single taxpayer, and even more as a DINK, (dual income no kids),I was not about to turn it down.

What is truly amazing to me, is that if I suddenly lost my job tomorrow,and had to start from scratch,I am screwed as far as all those "social programs" that my taxes have paid for all my life are concerned.I would not qualify for any real "assistance".Have you ever helped a friend who was disabled or retired apply for Social Security Disability benefits? Trust me,they will be reduced to the equivelant of a homeless shelter before they get what they thought they paid for their entire life.
Had I made less income, I would immediately be on easy street as far as foodstamps,housing vouchers,and childcare assistance from Uncle Sugar.
No one has ever been able to explain to me why "rich people" have to pay a higher percentage of their income to the Federal Government for the same services.As one who has spent a few years at the bottom of the barrel looking up,I am amused, for want of a better word,that all of my elected officials make way more money for controlling me, than I make for a living.
That I live in Florida,no state income tax, seems to shed some clarity.It seems fair to me that the people before me and after me in the grocery store checkout line pay the same taxes on the same items to finance the State Government.We drive the same roads, and have the same government.Rich or poor, we vote the same ballot come election day.
The only problem I see, is that the choice is now the lessor of two bad choices.Take the fast or the slow road to perdition.
And now, the elders think prescription drugs must be "given" to them for free, because they paid taxes all their lives.
Sorry, the short version of my rant is : Life is only unfair if one actually expects the government to help you.
If one actually has this belief, they should move to the USSR...Oh, I forgot, communism lost the Cold War.Cuba seems to be the last true bastion...

[clintonh8r]

The problem is that it was the idea of the RATs in the senate to do this, so he'll have some trouble claiming ownership, and rightly so. Also, this will just serve to agitate W's base (negatively) every time it comes up. Again, I see it as a lose-lose situation...betray your base, adopt an idea that your enemy proposed, don't gain any votes from the beneficiaries (most of them will NEVER vote Republican). I'll still vote for him, too, but I think he has more to gain if people see him standing up for the things he believes in. I don't think he believes in welfare. This smells like a Rove deal. He's usually right, but not this time.

[Beck_isright]

"And your solution would be?"

During the Reagan years, us, yes, the forgotten "grass roots", insured that his political goals would succeed to a great extent. My solution would be, as I have already done down here in Monroe County, is to advise the local RNC reps that if things do not change and within the next 6 months to a year, that you will sit on your hands. I'm already looking at moving my retirement funds offshore to the islands. And since for a mere deposit of $500,000 in securities and cash, you can get citizenship in many of these nations, it's an inviting prospect. Your solution appears to be to have no principles. Sounds quite Clintonian, but I have a wife, and need no other broads in my life. I'll stick with principle. I'm too old to change now.

"All Im saying is pick our battles, have you forgotten the ongoing filibuster?"

No. W has. Why not nuke the Demorats with a parlimentary procedure? Why not use principle in a fight and win respect that way, instead of being cowards and scared of the media?

"This tax issue will be forgotten next year, but Estrada may or not."

The 80/20 rule indicates it will be dead in 30 days.

"So I suppose you going to show him and not vote for Bush, huh?"

As of today, I'm not voting at all. 40 years of voting wasted. We've gone from fighting communists to adopting their policies. Yeppers, that's real progress.

"Thats how Clinton got elected."

No, Clinton got elected because Bush Sr. refused to follow through on a promise and showed a lack of prinicple. Clinton got re-elected because the RNC failed to show backbone and fixed the primaries for Dole. It just proves that the 80/20 rule still holds solid. Enjoy your participation in the 80.

"That'll show Bush you mean business."

As of today, the only differences between Bush and Lieberman are how you spell the last names and that Bush isn't Jewish.

[lawdude]

"So, give them a real break - cut sales tax rates."

Perhaps we should place tattoos with a serial number on them to indicate they are a 'no-salestax' citizen. When they start paying taxes, we can "X" out the 'too.

I'm kidding, get a life!!!
hmmmm

[Amelia]

If you're going to refer to my posts, please have the courtesy to ping me.

Who do YOU think Rush will be voting for next year?

[cardinal4]

Maybe I am wrong.

[Beck_isright]

"The point of the tax cut is to put money back in Americans pockets, anybody who works pays over $400 a year in FICA, which goes into the general fund, no different than my money does."

If someone who earns $26,000 per year has two kids and pays $2,100 in "payroll taxes" and $400 per year in FICA, then receives a $3,000 IRS refund, please pray tell, what entitles them to more of MY MONEY???????

" A lot of multi-milliondollar corporations don't pay incometaxes,yet get tons of corporate welfare."

Bovine scattology. You have no clue in what you are talking about. Because of your theory of "corporate welfare" the businesses are relocating overseas because they can no longer increase the prices on their goods to cover the costs of all taxes. Which, by the way, since it's obvious you are not incorporated like some of us FReepers are, is paid by our customers, the same idiots who claim us corporations get "tax breaks for the rich". Please, get a grip.

"It doesn't make economic or political sense to cut the poor out."

From a Marxist-Hegelian perspective, I would have to agree.

"And the 3.5 billion price tag is miniscule."

That's true. I just transferred $2 billion out of my savings to contribute to the $15 Billion we are sending to Africa to cure AIDS.

[cardinal4]

I should bristle at being compared to Clinton, but I have seen your posts before and expected the name calling. We disagree on this. Since you are so convinced nothing will change, why dont you and your money go offshore now? Now voting over this, is what we dont need. And I am not in 80%, I just think this is the wrong issue. Have fun in the Caymans.

[freedumb2003]

>>The liquor stores are gonna love this<<
LOL

MD 80/80 is about $4 a bottle. The welfare queens can buy 5 cases (by their math). FAT CITY BABY.

[Just mythoughts]

Well somebody better get an eye on the reauthorization of the Transportation Bill that raises the gas tax .05 cents with an automatic increase there after.

What these people give with one hand they take with another and a Republican so called from Alaska is the Chairman and he is pushing it.

Alaska apparently gets back somewhere around $6.00 bucks per tax dollar sent to the big money distribution center of the world.

[Beck_isright]

"I should bristle at being compared to Clinton, but I have seen your posts before and expected the name calling."

Why? Because you advocate winning over principle? That's what Clinton did. You should be a stand up guy and brag about being a winner. Or stand on principle. You can not have both.

" Since you are so convinced nothing will change, why dont you and your money go offshore now?"

Because to give up 58 years of my life, without admitting all hope is lost, would be stupid. I still have hope. I will fight for it. But if it looks like we are dragging our economy back to 1931 and will re-elect another FDR, I'm out of here.

[cardinal4]

Because to give up 58 years of my life, without admitting all hope is lost, would be stupid. I still have hope. I will fight for it. But if it looks like we are dragging our economy back to 1931 and will re-elect another FDR, I'm out of here.

I just dont see it that way. There are going to be a lot more issues coming down the pike between now and 2004. I have been rereading through the posts, maybe Im wrong in mitigating the tax credit. But I just dont think this issue is important enough to turn on Bush. One thing I will retract; I just read Bushs condemnation of the Israelis bombing yesterday. Now that pisses me off. And thats an important issue as well.

[Beck_isright]

It's not just this issue. Look at the entire record. I would not make a decision like this based on one issue. Principle is important to me. If we surrender that, why bother declaring that we are an honorable and just nation. We are no better than France when we surrender our principles.

[F16Fighter]

"[W]e ARE see our fellow freepers selling out left and right here at FR and in marching with the Bush White House, THEY ARE LIKE THE WH, selling out their principles."

Amen...

For years we lambasted and ridiculed Democrats for being mindless, unprincipled whores for whom Party power superceded what was right and just -- We now see the same here amongst so-called "conservatives."

Unfortunately, hypocracy masquerading as pragmatism infests both parties.

[mikenola]

Richard,
You seem to know something about this.

I've been running my mind over what would happen if Bush actually did cut government spending in some significant way. Say eliminating the Department of Education. Wouldn't the resulting job losses and the loss of govt cash into the private sector in terms of goods/services be a negative weight on the economy overall?

[Gary Boldwater]

Most of their programs are maddening. What good are tax cuts if government grows at an ever increasing rate? I predict the printing presses will be running full bore (printing money) to inflate (and indirectly tax) our way out of this mess. Inflation may stem the collapse in house values, fund the government (they can print faster than cost of living adjustments), cause stocks to rise and be a less "painful" way of taxation. Woe to those on fixed incomes or who live on very little debt or own real assets.
This is not a Conservative administration, or even close to one.

[Beck_isright]

If you eliminated the Departments of Energy and Education tommorrow, and maybe even the Commerce Department, the only upset people would be the unemployed bureaurats and the demorats. In other words, the rats would go ape. Economically speaking it's spit in the ocean.

[Beck_isright]

"This is not a Conservative administration, or even close to one."

It's Truman II.

[arete]

Wouldn't the resulting job losses and the loss of govt cash into the private sector in terms of goods/services be a negative weight on the economy overall?

In a word, yes. We're locked in to ever expanding government because the economy depends on it just as the FED is now locked in to exponential expansion of debt cause the economy depends on it. It simply cannot be sustained so the only question is how and when it crashes.

Richard W.

[F16Fighter]

"Why refuse to give them back their money?

By what edict?? Where is it written anyone gets a free ride? The U.S. Constitution??

This is mere political BRIBERY of the underclass for votes -- financed by folks like me.

If YOU want to write out a check made payable to the charity of your choice, have at it.

Who is the Government to steal MY money for THEIR "charity"??