McCain Attacked By Rush and Delay?
Are either Rush or Delay conservative? How much pull do Rush and Delay have with the GOP base?
-
Your ad here.
Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.
20 Responses to “McCain Attacked By Rush and Delay?”
|
Is Rush behind Romney? Nah maybe he thinks it’s better not to win than suffer more blowback from “more of the same”.
John
First, let me say this is one of your better posts.
Now to the “meat” of the issue;
McCain is viewed by many to be a liberal, or more appropriately, a RINO.
Whether he can curry enough favor with core conservatives has already been decided in the earlier primaries. He can’t.
I’m not suggesting he won’t get the nomination, he might. But I think it’s unlikely. Here’s why;
As Rush pointed out, what republicans at the grass root level are most concerned with is a socialist (aka democrat) winning the white house. Both Hillary and Obama want to expand the size of the Federal government, establish more and more socialist programs, surrender in Iraq, open the borders to more illegal criminal aliens, etc. The only issue on which they and McCain disagree is Iraq.
Many Reagan republicans see McCain as a turncoat to his party, while they view some of the other republican candidates as either being to soft on social issues, or to accomodating to the left.
My guess is that core conservatives will do one of two things when they go to the polls; either they’ll vote for Romney as he is probably the most conservative, or they’ll stay home and hope the Country can survive for four years with a socialist at the helm. As Rush so eloquently pointed out, the survival of Reagan conservatism is far more important than a single presidential election – assuming the Nation can survive the onslaught of socialism.
As I said in an earlier thread, and as this guy just reiterated in the video, McCain hasn’t won a republican ONLY primary yet. Of course, that may change, but I seriously doubt it.
What’s with the “moderation” crap?
We know one thing, McCain is not a conservative.
There is no question on who is the conservative between McCain and Rush Limbaugh.
I would say on spending McCain is way more conservative than Rush. Also McCain is not a chicken hawk like Rush! I may not fully agree with McCain on Iraq but he did not claim a pimple on his backside to get of serving during Vietnam like Rush did!
SgtMac
It was the spam filter sorry!
Sgt Mac
Rush supported the largest expansion of government in our history via Bush!
No he did not John. You should listen to the show every now and then before making a fool of yourself.
And again I ask, what was the alternative to Bush in 2000 and 2004? Do you think AlGore or band-aid boy would have CUT spending, decreased taxes and reduced government?
Bart
The tax cut was a bad idea if you did not tie it to reducing the growth of spending. Greenspan, Paul O Neil, David Walker, Pete Peterson……. all respected economist warned this would happen without the spending discipline with the tax cut we would face what is happening today.
Where would you cut spending? Most of the big spending is mandatory or to keep state economies stimulated.
As you know, many state’s economies are basket cases and depend on federal pork and funding just to stay above water.
Where do you cut spending when just keeping up with inflation requires spending increases even if you can’t do anything more than retain “status quo?”
And, with inflation under reported, you have to increase spending even more than COLA increase allow because buying power is declining especially in health care with an “aging population.”
Add that there are still a lot of people supporting a “strong defense,” and you don’t have room for any meaningful cuts. Yet, you do need to keep jobs growing as fast as the population which is about 125,000 jobs a month. If you don’t cut taxes to create incentives for business expansion and investments, how do you grow the jobs?
There is no way you can cut spending an raising taxes only creates a short term rise of a few years if on business and investment until they downsize, close or leave or raise prices that cuts into buying power on the individual.
In that latter case, he then demands more relief from government and the cycle starts over and even demands more pork for his state to keep the economy going.
Just the S.S., Health and humans services, Treasury depart (where interest of $470 billion is at) and defense dept. puts you at about 2.3 trillion. So where do you cut unless in Defense which even the democrats haven’t done since being in control of Congress. They don’t want their states with defense industries laying people off either.
Bringing 150,000 troops home won’t cut spending that much if we are going to keep sending money to prop up the government in Iraq and other places.
There are solutions but they all cause pain and this is an election year where “pain” loses votes and campaign donations. But, stimulus packages and more spending gets votes.
John,
So without spending cuts in the same legislation, you would oppose tax cuts? That is the dem logic; ‘how are we going to pay for the cuts…’ blah…
As JP and many others point out, it is going to be a monumental task to really address government spending. Cutting a few billion here and there from pork is nothing.
The real challenge is with entitlements…SS, MediXXXX, welfare, education, etc. Bush tried…did you support his SS reform proposal?
John,
One other myth that needs correcting — McCain did not vote against tax cuts because of spending:
From 2004 Meet The Press show — “I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep.
Bart
John’s view and others in both parties is why I am so pessimistic about the economy. The total lack of understanding of how much voters are demanding increased spending at the same time the call for restraint and “tax somebody else,” is beyond belief.
As you point out, entitlements and the $53 trillion federal and $9 trillion state unfunded liability can’t be “grown” out of nor taxed out of.
Just Health and Human Services and Social Security are now 1.3 trillion and add interest on debt and we are at 1.8 trillion and that doesn’t include something like another $59 billion in food programs like food stamps in the Dept of Ag.
They also don’t seem to understand how much trouble states are in with their budgets and their ever increasing demands for federal funding to help meet shortfalls in things like education. California is going to be begging the Federal Government for help. They are cutting education due to their $14 billion shortfall in their budget projections due to large losses in tax revenues from the housing collapse.
It is impossible to get reform when the voters won’t support it.
JP,
Michelle Malkin got it right last week, time for a candidate to stand tall and say Suck It Up!
But I still think we can recover without falling into a deep recession/depression.
We can do that for now. That isn’t the problem. All who have studied the trends here say that as we continue to borrow more personally, especially, and at the city and state level, we collapse from the bottom up.
I believe the mistake many are making is assuming this will be a “federal government collapse.”
The fed, right now, may be able to avoid this recession. Since the definition is 2 quarters of negative GDP, all they have to do is deficit spend enough to keep GDP positive.
The formula includes government spending (at all levels, city, state and federal). As long as the government borrows enough or “prints money out of ‘thin air’”, we can avoid the recession.
This is what has many “analysts on the networks baffled and asking questions like,” if the economy is still going good, unemployment still around 5%, GDP positive, why are you spending on an incentive plan and cutting rates so soon before we even have 1 quarter of negative GDP.
The answer is if you start early, you get spending high enough to never go into the recession that could lead to even worse conditions (and voter unrest). The only downside is that we are raising debt and future liabilities to do so. The other risk is that we may have waited too long and now the consumers, unable to get home equity loans to pay of the $934 billion or so in credit card debt and they will pay down debt instead of spend it.
Since a lot of debt money goes overseas and even if they spend it, the money may go overseas if spent at Target, Kmar, Walmart, etc.
But, theoretically, if they spend enough, they can keep GDP postive. That just means that whenever that consumer is tapped out, the cities and state can’t borrow more, the recession will be much worse.
Since a lot of debt money goes overseas and even if they spend it, the money may go overseas if spent at Target, Kmar, Walmart, etc., the incentive may not work as well as some hope.
==================
Accidentally deleted that last part of the sentence.
The only way I see a Federal collapse is if the dollar crashed due to OPEC switching to Euro or Russia doing that. I don’t see that happening. Their “economies” are still tied to the dollar and keeping demand for it high.
The other would be a sudden loss of loans from foreign governments to the Fed. Again, I don’t see that for a few years again, due to their economies tied to us.
But, currently only 20% of China’s exports now go to the U.S. As that number drops due to consumers growing over 50 million middle class a year in just China and India (now over 500 million of them), their willingness to let the dollar fall and end loans will rise. At that point, the Fed may be in trouble but for now, it is the individual, city and state, I believe that the risk lies with and why the Fed is so desperate to get spending up. States are losing $917 million this year in just property tax revenues. Add all the lost income from real estate, title companies, builders, construction workers, impact fees, etc. and they are facing huge losses that “spending” on other things will have to replace.
Bart
You agree with Cheney that debt does not matter?
Controlable debt is fine if not warranted John no matter who advocates it.
Do you agree with McCain’s vote against tax cuts “because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans.”?