My Bipartisan Stimulus: By Rush Limbaugh

KingBroly

CAGiversary!
Now, I know most of you don't care to listen or read what this man has to say, but he is a highly influential figure in the world of politics. This article, needless to say is interesting in a way only he can make it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.


I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.


Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.


Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.


Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.


Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."


Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.


Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.


Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.


I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.


In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.
The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
 
Corporations don't really pay 35% after the massive deductions and what not, and I seriously doubt the capital gains tax really has that much of an effect on investing. Also, massive growth over a short period of time is fucking bad. It just leads to inflation and an eventual recession.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Now, I know most of you don't care to listen or read what this man has to say, but he is a highly influential figure in the world of politics. This article, needless to say is interesting in a way only he can make it.[/QUOTE]

Rush "Blow Hard" Limbaugh is only influential to the hard right-wingers. A Walter Cronkite, he is not.

And thank god for that.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']Rush "Blow Hard" Limbaugh is only influential to the hard right-wingers. A Walter Cronkite, he is not.

And thank god for that.[/quote]

Being influential goes both ways. Influential to follow, influential to not follow.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl: I think that's simply "not influential."[/quote]

It was 2am in the morning. At 2am in the morning, I write things the long way. And at 5am, I talk about food products. Today, I'll be discussing apple pie. It's so moist and delicious. The crust is almost always good, except at the very edge of the pie. Can be served with other various types of desserts.
 
[quote name='Krymner']I just think its funny that Rush gets so much hate by so many people who never even listen to him.[/QUOTE]

I have listened to him, quite a bit actually. If some here actually listened to him they would probably hate him even more.

Something should be pointed that you don't need to be a Dittohead to know is that A) Rush is not an economist and B) He has a vested interest in seeing the economy stay bad or get even worse.
 
[quote name='Msut77']He has a vested interest in seeing the economy stay bad or get even worse.[/quote]

The same exact thing was said about Obama when he was running for president. At the time, I didn't believe Obama felt that way, and I seriously don't believe Rush wants the economy to get worse either. That's just stupid wishing something will get worse for your own benefit, while millions of people are losing their jobs and struggling to pay thier mortgages. And if its one thing that neither Obama nor Rush is, is stupid.
 
Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone.

Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound.

most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical

cut the U.S. corporate tax rate

Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%.

Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day

if we set aside the politics.

Dude's living in Candy Land for real. Check his prescriptions.
 
If liberal policies are followed and a resounding recovery is had by the country, how could Rush trumpet that conservative policies are needed?

Let's try an analogy. The country is a car moving at 60 mph and 1000 feet away from a brick wall called a depression. Obama and Rush are in the back seat. Obama says liberal policies are the brake. Rush says conservative policies are the brake.
 
There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
But does anyone really think this is an "average recession"? I think the premise is faulty from the start. This sucker was brought on wholesale by business willing to sell out anything that moves for a profit. Tax cuts can't fix that.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
Translation: by using money to stimulate anything other than what Rush wants (tax cuts), it's a sop to the Democratic party.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy.
Not to mention that I doubt there is any rational person at this point willing to stand up and say that America, independent of this economic issue, is *NOT* in dire need of infrastructure upgrade. I mean shit, when a snow storm absolutely decimates an entire swath of the country, we got issues. Or a hurricane. Or, or, or...
Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
JFK was against Keynesian economics? I better run down to NASA headquarters down the street and tell em a stimulus bill to dramatically push science research won't get us to the moon. Oh wait.

Ronald Reagan. The one that followed the biggest tax cut in history with the biggest tax increase, right?
George Bush. The "read my lips" president that raised taxes?

Gimme a fucking break.
Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
That's funny, I thought the recent polling data indicated a complete and utter repudiation of Republican ideas across the board. But I guess the election doesn't really count.

And since when did Republicans give a good god damn about polls? Did that start up again on Jan. 21st? Did I miss that memo?
In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."
If people wanted Cantor running the country, they would have voted for him, no?
Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
So the guy that was whining about having to carry water for the Repubs for 8 years is now suddenly an honest broker? The guy that admitted that he was basically lying to his listeners about his reasons for his support of Repubs is crying bi-partisanship? The guy begging for the nuclear option is crying about bipartisanship?

lulz.

Sorry dude. Tough to take that seriously.
 
[quote name='Limbaugh']Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.[/quote]

I stopped reading at this. Did our economy rebound in the last eight years and I didn't notice? Because employment and wages have either stayed steady or dropped since 2001. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong indicators, but those two are-I think-the important ones.

Ultimately, any additional spending done by the consumer in the last ten years was funded by unsecured debt. Or mortgage debt. Unless we actually have more to spend on our personal balance sheets, any additional spending is only temporary. We have to pay it back eventually.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In Limbaugh's world, the 'growth' from 2002-2007 resulted from the tax cuts, which stopped the "Clinton Recession" of 2001.[/quote]
So... It's not that 2001 was the effect of a natural contraction after the Y2K/.com bubble burst, combined with massive terrorist attacks undercutting our sense of security, and that any growth during the Bush years was false because of us charging all our extra spending.

Gotcha.

I remember a press conference from 2001/2002 era where Bush talked about every sector of the economy shrinking or staying steady e.g. job growth, wage growth, durable goods etc. except for home ownership. They pointed to that one bright spot as a wonderful thing. I remember wondering where all that extra personal income came from to buy those houses. Because without a positive on the balance sheet, all negatives are leveraged-but I guess that sense is just too common.

Praise the Lord for ARMs.

Will we ever have politicians that don't mortgage our future for the sake of the present, and try to hoodwink us? Will we ever be farsighted enough to realize that what we do today invariably affects us for years down the road?
 
[quote name='Krymner']The same exact thing was said about Obama when he was running for president. At the time, I didn't believe Obama felt that way, and I seriously don't believe Rush wants the economy to get worse either. That's just stupid wishing something will get worse for your own benefit, while millions of people are losing their jobs and struggling to pay thier mortgages. And if its one thing that neither Obama nor Rush is, is stupid.[/QUOTE]

No, Rush is pretty fucking stupid.
 
Why does Rush Limbaugh hate America?

[quote name='Rush Limbaugh']So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.[/quote]

So he hates that liberalism fails, which means he hopes that President Obama fails, which means he hopes that America fails.

I remember when he and Bill O'Reilly said that people who don't support the Iraq War hate their country. Double standards are great, aren't they?
 
Are you trying to say that this is all political theater, and the GOP is positioning themselves in a way to gain seats in 2010 due to the near certainty of a lack of improvement in our economy sufficient to keep the Dems in charge despite getting their way in the stimulus bill.

Or are you saying that Rush Limbaugh has the kind of influence, or will reclaim that influence, that he had in the 1990's? Trust me, as a true-blue (14-year old) dittohead in 1992, I remember that well. Very well.

Could be. I think Limbaugh's ratings will go up in the coming months, just like The Daily Show's ratings will go down.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you trying to say that this is all political theater, and the GOP is positioning themselves in a way to gain seats in 2010 due to the near certainty of a lack of improvement in our economy sufficient to keep the Dems in charge despite getting their way in the stimulus bill.

Or are you saying that Rush Limbaugh has the kind of influence, or will reclaim that influence, that he had in the 1990's? Trust me, as a true-blue (14-year old) dittohead in 1992, I remember that well. Very well.

Could be. I think Limbaugh's ratings will go up in the coming months, just like The Daily Show's ratings will go down.[/quote]

Failure is imminent unless ...

1. Iraq and Afghanistan are abandoned.
2. The steady stream of corporate welfare (from farm subsidies to bailouts) is halted or severely reduced.
3. People are explicitly told what is demanded of them to reduce the severity and duration of our collective downturn.

...

1 might partially happen (Iraq winds down and Afghanistan cranks up), 2 definitely won't happen and 3 can't happen because only 2% of the population are adults.

So, we are in for a bumpy ride even with the Democratic Party in control of both Houses and the Presidency. During the long way down, people are going to gravitate to anybody that picks a scapegoat as the cause of our collective woes. Enter Limbaugh.

What will happen in 2010? Everybody is going to get out of their cardboard boxes and vote for whoever isn't in power.
 
bread's done
Back
Top