Hastert Lectures McCain on War, Sacrifice

Wed May 19, 7:15 PM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!


By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Growing tensions between House and Senate Republicans over the war in Iraq (news - web sites), abuse of Iraqi prisoners, tax cuts and budget deficits erupted Wednesday with House Speaker Dennis Hastert lecturing former POW and Arizona Sen. John McCain about sacrifice and war.


AP Photo



McCain, who spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison, excoriated fellow Republicans on Tuesday for pushing more tax cuts while U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"Throughout our history, wartime has been a time of sacrifice. ... What have we sacrificed?" McCain said. "As mind-boggling as expanding Medicare has been, nothing tops my confusion for cutting taxes during wartime. I don't remember ever in the history of warfare when we cut taxes."


Asked Wednesday about McCain's remarks, Hastert, who was rejected for military service because of a bad shoulder, first joked: "Who? Where's he from? A Republican?"


Then, more seriously, he said: "If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda (two Washington area military hospitals). There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure that they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong not only militarily but economically. We want to be able to have the flexibility to do it. That's my reply to John McCain."


McCain stood fast in his reply to Hastert.


"The speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops," he said. "All we're called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility."


The conflict erupted as Hastert laid down a budget making it easier to pass future tax cuts regardless of their impact on the federal deficit. McCain and a group of GOP moderates in the Senate want to rein in deficits by making tax cuts harder.


Later, Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the speaker "values Sen. McCain's military service, but he disagrees with him on tax relief."


__

gotta give it up to mccain. i woulda ripped his spinal chord through his toes if i were him saying some dumb shit to me like that...

Sounds to me as if he was telling the truth.

When will government "sacrifice" something? Sure, they've cut tax rates but they haven't cut spending and revenue is growing.

Fiscal responsibility also entails a limit on spending, which is something McCain nor Hastert seem to be willing to support. Give the money back to the people you gave it to.
_________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

Hastert is talking about tax cuts, not spending cuts.

McCain is the one talking about fiscal responsibility.

McCain was saying reduce the tax cuts so government would have more to spend. That isn't "sacrificing". Sacrificing would be the government cutting spending as well as taxes.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

the sacrifice mccain was talking about is that rupublicans want to cut taxes, its one of the main goals on their agenda. no legislature in the history of the world has lowered taxes during a war, and mccain is saying that they have to sacrifice their goal of lowering taxes in order to adequately fund the war without sinking (even more) irreparably into debt.

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

Saying repealing tax cuts is a sacrifice is like saying you're going to punish yourself for going on a diet by eating a Brownie Earthquake from Dairy Queen. That's not a sacrifice.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

See, in a war, government spending is going to go up. That's just a fact of life. Because you're reconstructing another country, and sending your fighting men and women there, and supporting them, as well as running your own country. And it's ludicrous, in such an economic environment, to cut taxes, because you wind up running up a huge deficit. And McCain was just pointing out that wartime entails sacrifice, on the part of the people of the country going to war, i.e., not getting further tax cuts, because it would be fiscally irresponsible to cut revenue further at a time when spending is increasing.

Considering that the two spending bills on the war in the last year is only a fourth of what the prescription drug plan was, along with several other non-military spending bills are, there really isn't a justifiable reason why overall spending has to go up. They do it because they want to.

It's fiscally irresponsible for the government to continue to spend more on social programs and the like in a time of war. Spending cuts go hand-in-hand with tax cuts. Even if you take those tax cuts away you'd still have deficits.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

hmm...the Republicans. They have no intention of cutting back on spending. You may see the tax cuts as a precursor to spending cuts, but they're just using the tax cuts as a way to "stimulate the economy". That's why McCain is pissed, because he remembers when they were the party that stood for a balanced budget. Have you seen any indication that Bush would propose a budget with overall spending cuts? It's supply-side Reaganomics all over again, with the budget deficit shooting through the roof. And having an active war only makes the spending go up even more.

You really should be with McCain on this, because in talking about a balanced budget and making sacrifices, he's at least alluding to possibly cutting spending to do it. Hastert's only talking about tax cuts.

I am never going to say "no tax cuts".

The fact is that people should have more of their own money. If Congress can't control their spending then that's Congress's fault. That's no reason to punish the taxpayers.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

Who do you think is going to be taxed at some point in the future to pay that deficit, and the large amounts of interest it's accumulating? Congress?

you support people that advocate spending cuts, or are at least prone to doing so.

Either way, one that will advocate tax cuts are more likely to advocate spending cuts as well. The problem with government right now isn't tax cuts. It's spending. Like I said before, even if the tax cuts were repealed we'd still have a deficit. That shows a lack of fiscal discipline on spending limits regardless. The fact is that Democrats yell and complain about the budget, but 1. Really didn't care about balancing the budget in the 90's until forced by Republicans to do so and 2. Would raise budget deficits twice as much if allowed to have reign over the budget.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

So you give the Republicans credit for Clinton's balanced budget. And I'm assuming you blame the Democrats for Reagan's budget deficits in the 80s? So what do you attribute the huge deficits to now? You have a Republican congress and a Republican administraion. And I don't see any spending cuts, or even the rhetoric of spending cuts anymore. Bush campaigned in favor of smaller government, and evidently you still believe him. But he's made it much larger, with no evidence of cuts in the future.
>
>Either way, one that will advocate tax cuts are more likely
>to advocate spending cuts as well.
But in this case, the opposite is true. Hastert is advocating tax cuts, not spending cuts, just like the White House wants him to.

And your rhetoric about "Democrats would spend twice as much", is a) tired, and b) not true. I guarantee they wouldn't be wasting money on ill-fated projects like an ABM shield that doesn't work. Republicans are the party of running up the deficit with wasteful military spending and tax cuts, Democrats are the party of the balanced budget. Your will to stick to the talking points is admirable, but you're a little behind the times.

>Republicans are the party of
>running up the deficit with wasteful military spending and
>tax cuts,

but remember the sage words of Cheney: Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter - LOL.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

Bill Clinton never thought about balancing a budget until the Republicans won both houses of Congress and thus forced him to address the issue. It was the Republican Congress who proposed a plan to eliminate the deficit by 2002 back in 1994.

Clinton in 98, which was the first supposed balanced budget, was resisting it because their plan supposedly reduced the deficit too quickly. But he was all too willing to claim the proposals as his own, when he knew if he had it his way there would have never been a balanced budget. However, the Congressional Budget Office had predicted $200 billion dollar deficits throughout the 90's in 1995.

The bottom line is that the Democrats never have thought about reducing deficits of any kind, and probably haven't advocated spending cuts outside of military allocations since Truman was in office. They definitely haven't advocated tax cuts since JFK, except in targeted income areas.

In the primaries, every Democratic proposal would have busted the budget alot worse than anything currently, especially when it came to implementing their socialist health care reforms. When asked how were they going to pay for all of these programs all they could say is "by repealing the tax cuts". But even if you repealed the tax cuts today there would still be a deficit, so all you would be doing is making the debt grow even larger, and they would probably raise taxes on top of the repeal in order to claim minimal deficits. Gephardt's health plan by itself would have cost 2 trillion over 10 years and Dean's was 1 trillion. Kerry's health plan would have cost $750 billion, at least at least during the debates (and knowing his flip flopping ways he's probably against health care by now, and would vote against his own proposal. None of these guys except Lieberman had proposed comprehensive budget reduction plans, and even his included massive tax increases.

The fact is that they would bloat the budget even further. Plain and simple.
__________________________
"Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?" - James Lileks

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

Has a Democratic President post-FDR ever run up deficits as big as Reagan and Bush have? Republicans may pay lip service to cutting spending, but they don't do it. And they've turned us from the largest creditor nation into the world's biggest debtor. But that's okay, you just keep on not addressing the issue that this is a Republican President and a Republican Congress that are running up deficits not seen since Reagan, and emphatically NOT CUTTING OVERALL SPENDING.

>Bill Clinton never thought about balancing a budget until
>the Republicans won both houses of Congress and thus forced
>him to address the issue. It was the Republican Congress
>who proposed a plan to eliminate the deficit by 2002 back in
>1994.

That's one way of looking at it... of course the other way, or as I like to call it: "what actually happened" is better. Clinton's 1993 (note, 3 comes before 4) deficit-reduction plan raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off. It also eliminated the deficit. This deficit reduction plan passed despite every single republican senator voting against it. Now republicans are trying to take credit for it?!

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

Courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, a small, non-partisan budget watchdog organization

Surplus or Deficit, by year


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first column is the year, the second column is deficit or surplus for that year, and the third is the cumulative debt.

1962 -7.1 248.0
1963 -4.8 254.0
1964 -5.9 256.8
1965 -1.4 260.8
1966 -3.7 263.7
1967 -8.6 266.6
1968 -25.2 289.5
1969 3.2 278.1
1970 -2.8 283.2
1971 -23.0 303.0
1972 -23.4 322.4
1973 -14.9 340.9
1974 -6.1 343.7
1975 -53.2 394.7
1976 -73.7 477.4
1977 -53.7 549.1
1978 -59.2 607.1
1979 -40.7 640.3
1980 -73.8 711.9
1981 -79.0 789.4
1982 -128.0 924.6
1983 -207.8 1,137.3
1984 -185.4 1,307.0
1985 -212.3 1,507.3
1986 -221.2 1,740.6
1987 -149.7 1,889.8
1988 -155.2 2,051.6
1989 -152.5 2,190.7
1990 -221.2 2,411.6
1991 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 -290.4 2,999.7
1993 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 -203.3 3,433.1
1995 -164.0 3,604.4
1996 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 -22.0 3,772.3
1998 69.2 3,721.1
1999 125.6 3,632.4
2000 236.4 3,409.8
2001 127.4 3,319.6
2002 -157.8 3,540.4
2003 -375.3 3,913.6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Congressional Budget Office.


Spending has never gone down under a Republican Adminstration since 1962. In fact, the only time it did go down was under LBJ, from 1964 to 1965 (by $300 million).

You can see the entire chart here, with spending and revenue included:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

In the 8 years that Reagan was in office, spending practically doubled (from 590.9 to 1064.4).

The Bush Administration, with a Republican Congress, has increased spending 7.2% this year over last year. The biggest increase I could find under Clinton was 3.7%. Reagan's first budget had a 15% increase in spending over Carter's last budget. Who are the big spenders again?

McCain can't even raise his right arm over his shoulder because of being beaten half to death by the Vietcong and rotting in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years, and Hastert has the nerve to say some shit like that? I thought Hastert had more class than that.

And McCain has gone to those hospitals to visit the wounded soldiers - I wonder if Hastert has though.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

enough of this crap, and McCain might just be willing to be Kerry's running mate.

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

McCain would not be a good running mate, but he would be a PERFECT secretary of defense, which is what Kerry said he had in mind... Although Dems like McCain for his straight talk and refusing to simply tow the party line, many of his views counter that of Dems. He is pro-life, pro-guns, pro-tax cuts (except now in a time of war) and several other things... its not wise to have a running mate with so many platforms that disagree with the president. but as the secretary of defense, the only view that would matter is his military opinion. and it would bring some sense of bipartisanship to D.C. for a change...

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

Senator is better than Secretary of Defense.

not really... secretary of defense is a much higher-visibility position, which he could hold for 8 years, by which time he would likely be ready to retire. if he chose not to retire, i doubt he would have trouble getting his seat back... in addition, this would put a senate seat up for grabs, which could be taken by a Dem

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

I can't think of anyone in the past few administrations who's given up a Senate seat for a cabinet position. If you can think of any, let me know. Maybe William Cohen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense. But that's all I can think of.

off the top of my head i dont know either, but McCain loves Kerry, and i think that for the good of the country, he might be willing to do it

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

informed & entertained by yall.

Isn't it (deliciously) ironic how many of these hawks who love to talk about making sacrifices for the country somehow managed to avoid serving in Vietnam?

from Foghorn Leghorn: "I am a chickenhawk, and you are a chicken!"

-------------------------------------------------
"And do you know why I think he (George W. Bush)
is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra."

- Kurt Vonnegut

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

since Expertise seems to be on the boards today, I'd like a response to the numbers shown in post 29, if he would be so kind.