I'm tempted to say, shuddup Limbaugh. It's the first time he has ever offered a compromise to liberals, which shows really, how far Republican fortunes have sunk. He also takes his own shot at Obama. He talks about how one percent of the voters voted for "wackos," reminding us that he used to call Democrats that.
However, on the one hand, I wish the Democrats could or would to take it, and it makes sense that it's a lot more efficient not to collect taxes than it is to collect them and give the money back in a stimulus. But if so, the money wouldn't go to the right people, at least by Democratic reckoning.
On the other hand, if Democrats do compromise, it will be worse in the long run. It would obscure which part of the plan actually worked. So, afterward, the two sides will continue to be divided in their economic theories. Hope of bipartisanship on economic issues will be set back. Each side will come in and alternately, undo what the previous side established.
No, de-regulated supply-side economic theory has already shown its glaring flaw. It is time to try the opposite and see if it actually works. That way, we'll know.
But don't misunderstand, I wouldn't suggest doing it, that is of declining Limbaugh's compromise, if I didn't think the Democratic methods would work, that they were proved effective already over 40 years after the previous Republican debacle in 1929. They only fell apart after a terrible war.
The "right people" are people who pay no taxex to begin with.
Partisans don't really care about fixing the problem, they are more concerned with claiming the credit and avoiding the blame.
This time, I can't completely disagree with GaGambler...the second part of his post is spot on.
There is a lot of money being put forth in this stimulus bill and I'm very nervous about it. Whenever congress, no matter what administration's is in power, decides that something has to get done and done quickly, they always find a way to screw it up. Remember the USA Patriot Act, the TARP.
Lets slow down and really spend some time to evaluate real solutions to this financial and economic crisis.
It's no something I would recommend if I didn't think it would work.
"The right people" happen to be the people who will spend the money and buy products that aren't selling right now. That would lead to employment. We are reaching a situation where company revenue is being cut because people aren't buying because they are either unemployed or are worried about becoming unemployed. That in turn leads to more layoffs and unemployment.
You could give the money to the wealthier people with the idea that it would "trickle down." The problem is, with nothing selling, extra investment by the wealthy isn't going to help. Moreover, there's no means for it to "trickle down" anywhere when there's such high unemployment.
The only way to go is to restart employment.
So, I hope you see the reasoning has more to do with what will work and not just screwing the wealthy.
Limbaugh is said to now be the de facto leader of the Republicans (not true but this is what the MSM and Dems are saying). He’s now put a stimulus idea “out there” (serious enough for the WSJ to publish). Why won’t Obama talk to him? He’ll talk to Ahmadinejad but not Rush? BHO even goes so far as to telling Republicans they need to quit listening to him.
That's the ticket...I'm going to have the President waste his time with a talk show host rather than a leader of a country with whom we're having real conflicts. Get real...and stop drinking that neocon kool-aid the Rush and Hannity are passing out to you guys.
I agree totally that BHO shouldn't be talking to Rush. He should ignore him instead of whining about him, but then the Dem should quit calling Rush the Republican leader.
Ahmadinejad is the titular head of a major country. Obama might just become more popular in Iran than Ahmadinejad by talking to him. I mean, Iran has a huge, young, and rebellious population, who are sick and tired of the Islamic State.
Rush only has one thing going for him over Ahmadinejad: he's not a Holocaust denier, which is about the only thing that separates Rush from actual Nazism.
You're a fool. Back up your claims with some evidence.
That's like saying back up your claim that an ox is a bull without balls.
No. It's exactly saying you're flat wrong and you can't cite examples to the contrary.
BTW your title: "Anti-semitism is the only thing separating Rush from Nazism?" makes no sense. Are you saying that Rush is an anti-semite or that the Nazis weren't?
I'll go to it tomorrow it's far too late.
Perhaps I meant that Rush is a Nazi who lacks the Anti-Semitism?
but to compare him to the Nazi's is ridiculous. Just because he is on the opposite side of political spectrum, ultra conservative righty as opposed to an ultra liberaly lefty doesn't make him a Nazi.
Comparing you to Castro is just as fair a comparison.
BTW What do you have against oxen? You do know it is the "year of the ox" don't you? lol
It sounds like you're saying that the democrats shouldn't take the compromise, because we wouldn't know who to credit?
Gawd, I hope I got that wrong, because it's the most fucked up concept I've seen on these pages.
The only thing that surprises me is that Zin basically admitted what we've known all along. Partisan politics is MUCH more important than actual solutions, to some people at least.
I was in a Pollyana kind of mood.
You are undoubtedly correct. How else could all these guys (and ladies) who are smart enough to trick all those voters into picking them be dumb enough to never accomplish anything?
Like him are critical of the stimulus package. They are always for Tax Cut. Bush mailed out checks twice so, the economy should be booming now instead it has crashed and burned.
Supplyside shit didn't work. It is time to go back Keynesian demand side economics.
This is an economic crash in which industries crumbling due to the Financial Industry mismanaging their business for only greed.
Why would any sane person talk to moron Rush. What in the hell he know about Macro Economics?
Does this have anything to do with what I posted?
I do agree that the checks that were mailed out didn't do anything other than throw away money. However, pure supply side or pure demand side are both flawed IMHO. The good news is that the economy is currently so incredibly fucked up, that even the wrong approach will make it better, at least in the short run.
I'm saying we wouldn't know what works. Scientifically speaking we wouldn't know. That's totally, completely different than what you characterized there.
Now, suppose we chose the compromise and half the measures erase the gains of the other half. Then we'll be in the same condition five years from now, maybe not fully in a depression maybe, but just in the same place we are now-- and still ignorant of what actually works. Then, we'll have to chose anyway. Let's cut to the chase. Are the Conservatives afraid that the Democratic plan might work or might not work? The Repubs have had a enough time to try to make theirs work.
There are two opposite theories of economics the two parties have. Bipartisanship can't be repaired unless the parties agree finally on which macro-economic theory has the most merit. The parties did agree for forty years.
(IMO, the drawbacks of one theory have been demonstrated twice, so we should know that one of them has major problems, if not for a distorted sense self-interest.)
Rant On:
Limbaugh always goes to great pains to get his name in lights. Now, by spinning the words of the POTUS, he is proclaiming himself to have beeen annointed the de-facto leader of the Republican party, although Obama never once indicated Limbaugh was anything more than a dangerous talking head with far too much influence and power, far too little substance and absolutely no credibility as anything more than (by Limbaugh's own admission) a radio entertainer. He has fewer credentials to be in public office than Sarah Palin, Caroline Kennedy, Al Franken or Joe the Fucking Plumber.
The WSJ published an OP-Ed piece written by Limbaugh and his creative writing staff. I have no problem with that.
But in proposing policy of this nature, this hypocritical demagogue has gone way over the line imho, has no business straying from his seat in the radio broadcasting booth, and should shut the fuck up, and go sell his bilgewater spin to the morons who eat it up like so much pie in the sky.
I don't care if he has an audience of 18 million dittoheads, eraserheads, talking heads, or fishheads. He's a megalomaniac with an exaggerated sense of self-importance. He's a fucking pompous ass and an entertainer by his own admission. yes i said it twice. lemme say it again... HE'S A FUCKING ENTERTAINER!!! LIKE HOWARD STERN!!! OR OPRAH FUCKING WINFREY!!!
Obama is correct to ignore this bloviating bilgewater buffoon.
As I stated above, Obama and the Dems should ignore Rush. I can’t believe they are taking his bait. And that’s all it is is. He’s baiting them, and rightfully so in my mind. He’s trying to demonstrate the absurdity of their claim of extending a hand of bipartisanship. . Limbaugh’s proposal is just unique enough so as to garner media attention. Of course it’s not practical.
The Dem's idea of bipartisanship is for the Republicans to totally cave and vote for a bill to which they were not given any opportunity to contribute or amend. What is really strange if true is that Obama let Pelosi write the entire House bil by herself (and staff of course). It was a take it or leave proposal on the Dems part and they are within their power to do because of course they won. They wanted Republican votes only for cover when the recession doesn’t end as soon as many are hoping.
and it appears no Republican will vote for the existing stimulus as crafted by the Democratic House, or even small modifications in attempt to mollify the Republicans. And I don't blame them.
The Democrats can pass this bill without Republican votes. Let them. We will know in 6 months or less whether it worked. All we need to do is look at the best leading indicator, the stock market. Obama is betting his career on this bill. In 6 months he will either be a hero, or the biggest goat.
Besides, Republicans dress better, have better haircuts and just look more polished. Look at Cantor, Boehner, Pence, Thune, Sessions, Coburn. Now look at Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Frank, Waters, etc..etc. Only Democrat that looks polished is Dianne Feinstein.
Rush is a member of the "Media Elite" (as Palin coined it). Why? He makes MILLIONS of dollars a year and has a huge audience. That's about as elite as they come. There aren't many individuals who fall into this category. We all know who the larger news organizations are in this country.
Rush is an entertainer. He isn't a reporter or a journalist. He offers his opinions. Like most in the media who offer their commentary, some are based on facts, some are based on facts taken out of context, and some just push whatever ideology they want everyone else to buy into. That comes from the Dems and the Republicans.
Put it another way.. I wouldn't go to Rush for economic advice. I wouldn't hit up Oprah either. That's like watching the local news to get information on getting healthy. I look for credentials and complete information, not sound bites about what Reagan or FDR did 20 or 70 years ago under different circumstances.
About the dangers of Alar insecticide on apples it was all bullshit and they were duped?