|
Everything that is wrong about Rush thread (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And Democrats aren't really trying to get Rush to shut up. |
From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee yesterday:
| quote: | Last week, Rush Limbaugh actually said that he "hopes" President Obama fails to meet America’s challenges.
Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed.
Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send Limbaugh your comments. |
Although a weak attempt at a petition against him, this is really step 1 in building support for like the Fairness Doctrine. Unless they are just using Rush as a gimmick to get names/addresses/phone numbers for the 2010 campaign effort. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Olbermann and Matthews are hardly extremists. |
w...wh...wha....what??? :wtf: Now, these guys are actual journalists (supposedly) who are supposed to show objectivity in reporting, and you're trying to tell me they are not extreme?? I mean, you probably think I'm crazy to say Limbaugh isn't extreme in the same way I think you're crazy to say that about Olberduche and Matthews, so I guess it's just par for the course.
| quote: | | You listen to, support, and side with people who aided, abetted and said nothing during those 8 years. Your side ed up. |
My side, as in true conservatives (not necessarily republicans) did up by keeping quiet, you're absolutely right.
| quote: | | I'm not getting exactly what I hoped for in the slightest, not with all this weak pandering. |
Don't sweat the pandering man, the things you want to get passed will still get passed. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee yesterday:
Although a weak attempt at a petition against him, this is really step 1 in building support for like the Fairness Doctrine. Unless they are just using Rush as a gimmick to get names/addresses/phone numbers for the 2010 campaign effort. |
The DCCC puts out a press release about everything. Stop acting like Democrats think Rush is the boogeyman.
Also, like I said, Rush = Bill Maher. Olbermann + Matthews = Scarborough + Novak. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The DCCC puts out a press release about everything. Stop acting like Democrats think Rush is the boogeyman.
Also, like I said, Rush = Bill Maher. Olbermann + Matthews = Scarborough + Novak. |
I don't know about that equation. Matthews is more cynical and doe-eyed towards Obama. Olbermann is so full of utter contempt and hatred for Republicans like Maher is. I would say Olby = Maher. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| There's a difference. Olbermann hates Bush - not Republicans in general. And on that, he's not much different than 77% of the country. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Now you know how I've felt about Olbermann and Matthews... but you don't see republicans trying to draft petitions to get them off the air. Silencing the opposition is important to one party in particular.
Edit: Exit question... if Rush is such a damage to the Republican party, why are the Democrats trying to get him to shut up? |
Olbermann and Mathews don't complain on a daily basis about a "drive-by" media, just because that media doesn't cater to the hardline Republican agenda...
If the Republican party stands for divisive neo-conservativism, then it's no wonder they lost the election so badly. Rush personifies everything which is wrong with the Republican Party. And I don't think anything is trying to shut him up. People are just voicing their outrage at his bull. Really, the Republicans should be trying to shut him up. "I hope Obama fails"...??? WTF? So much for being pro-America who ing voted him into office dickwad (Rush)... |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I don't know about that equation. Matthews is more cynical and doe-eyed towards Obama. Olbermann is so full of utter contempt and hatred for Republicans like Maher is. I would say Olby = Maher. |
Matthews has only recently come around to becoming more left. He's just jumping on the bandwagon right now because it's popular.
The difference between all these guys and Rush, is that, while they keep their criticisms aimed at politicians and political parties, Rush takes aim at everyone. He's lambasted teachers, union workers, gays, immigrants, foreigners, the french, the disabled, ex-cons, drug addicts, hippies, peace activists, feminists, environmentalists, conservationists...the list ing goes on...
He hates America and 90% of the people in it. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
The difference between all these guys and Rush, is that, while they keep their criticisms aimed at politicians and political parties, Rush takes aim at everyone. He's lambasted teachers, union workers, gays, immigrants, foreigners, the french, the disabled, ex-cons, drug addicts, hippies, peace activists, feminists, environmentalists, conservationists...the list ing goes on...
He hates America and 90% of the people in it. |
I'm sorry to say, but he loves AMerica and wants it to succeed. Maybe not in the way you want, but he isn't a man with hate in his heart. But it's easy to think that if you listen to the outlets and out of context sound bites that you do. Classic Rush (substitute Mr. Brunk for Clovis and it works out the same): | quote: | This letter to the editor is entitled: "It's Time For Rush Limbaugh To Go," and the guy who wrote the letter is J. Elmer Brunk from LeClaire somewhere. "On a recent program, Rush Limbaugh said, 'I hope he fails' referring to Barack Obama. This is not the first time Limbaugh has so blatantly made comments of dissension and hatred. He has been critical of the soldiers who have served our country well in Afghanistan, Iraq and in all previous military conflicts. It is time WOC-AM remove all Rush Limbaugh programs. Hoping that President Obama fails suggests that he doesn't care if Americans suffer from the deteriorating economy. He has made millions sowing dissension," so he doesn't care if we suffer.
Mr. Brunk, you, sir, are a sad glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. You couldn't be more wrong about your assertion about me and the military, the "phony soldiers" thing which we've already been through several times.
I want everybody to prosper in this country. I want everybody to have success. I want everybody that wants one to have the job they want, not the only job they can get -- and that's a 20-year history of this program. Your blatant ignorance represents the real problem in this country. Ignorance is our most expensive commodity. My hope for Obama's policy failures is based solely on the fact that they won't work, they won't create permanent, good jobs, J. Elmer Brunk. I love you. I want you to be as prosperous as you can. I wish you'd get rid of all this hate that you're carrying around. Your guy won. Be happy, Elmer. |
|
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
I thought this was kind of funny this morning -
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1016725296
BTW, aren't there like $280 Billion in tax cuts in this stimulus bill (and Biden and everyone else has already said that there will be more tax cuts and infrastructure after this goes into conference). Even with Rush's proposal, what do they get another $120 Billion to cut taxes?
I'm sorry, but tax cuts haven't worked for the past decade and handing the consumer money last year didn't help. When the porn industry (god love it) sees a boom right after those checks came out, I hate to say that I think that money would be better spent fixing roads or getting my parents the broadband that no one will provide them. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
BTW, aren't there like $280 Billion in tax cuts in this stimulus bill (and Biden and everyone else has already said that there will be more tax cuts and infrastructure after this goes into conference). Even with Rush's proposal, what do they get another $120 Billion to cut taxes? |
You have to take in mind the categorization of the so called tax cuts... because a lot of what they are calling "tax cuts" is in the form of rebate checks that will go to people who already do not pay taxes; it's just glorified wealth transfer/welfare. And we can't forget that illegal aliens are also recipients of the same kind of free money.
| quote: | | I'm sorry, but tax cuts haven't worked for the past decade and handing the consumer money last year didn't help. |
You are right about handing the consumer money at the end of last year not working... which is why I don't get why people can't see that doing it on an ever larger, more inflated scale also won't work.
As for the claim that tax cuts haven't worked, I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. Consider this study put out last week explaining in detail how tax cuts work and rebates don't. First, the explanation of how tax rebates do not stimulate:
| quote: | By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.
Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.
High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.
By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)
Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.
Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth. |
Now, an example of the 2001 FAILED tax rebate:
| quote: | While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.
In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.
All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002. |
... and now lets contrast the 2003 SUCCESSFUL tax cuts:
| quote: | By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:
-GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
-Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
-The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
-The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended. |
The conclusion? The 2003 tax rate cuts succeeded, because they increased incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby creating new wealth. The 2001 tax cuts, based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution, did not significantly increase economic growth. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm1776.cfm |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Now, an example of the 2001 FAILED tax rebate:
... and now lets contrast the 2003 SUCCESSFUL tax cuts:
[/COLOR]
The conclusion? The 2003 tax rate cuts succeeded, because they increased incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby creating new wealth. The 2001 tax cuts, based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution, did not significantly increase economic growth. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm1776.cfm |
I could have sworn that 9/11 had pretty major consequences on the general economy and have a hard time taking that period into consideration when looking at the overall trend cycle. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee yesterday:
Although a weak attempt at a petition against him, this is really step 1 in building support for like the Fairness Doctrine. Unless they are just using Rush as a gimmick to get names/addresses/phone numbers for the 2010 campaign effort. |
Wait, supporting the Fairness Doctrine is a bad thing?
Oh. Bummer. |
|
|
|
|
