Derision of the president on his program is nothing new, but Rush Limbaugh’s tone today may have struck the ears of regular listeners as particularly disdainful, taking his contempt of the president to a new level. The nation’s preeminent conservative talk radio host referred to Mr. Obama as a “jackass,” an “economic illiterate” and an “idiot, where capitalism is concerned.”
The rough stuff came during a monologue on the president’s position on extending the Bush tax cuts to all but the top two percent of wage earners. Obama, Limbaugh says, is an “economic ignoramus” for not understanding how a “tax increase” on the wealthy won’t stimulate growth.
Quoting an AP article from yesterday, Limbaugh pointed out Obama’s remarks at a meeting of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board that the wealthy would “take our ball and go home” if their tax cuts aren’t extended. Limbaugh then addressed the following line to the president directly:
“Mr. Obama, our imam-child, they have already taken their trillion dollar ball home, and they’re sitting on it, you jackass.”
#118, Thomas,
The problem isn’t that the government is spending money per se, some is of course necessary, the problem is that the government doesn’t face a market test when it does.
When a private firm dedicates resources to some activity, the market will ultimately signal to it whether those activities are where the resources should have gone, or if they should be reallocated to doing something else. If it doesn’t respond properly, then we should expect it to eventually be forced out of the market all together. The government can spend as much money as it has the power to extract from the citizenry (and more) without any worrying about whether those resources would be better put to use elsewhere. There is no consequence to the government for its poor decisions in how it uses resources, but we will all be poorer for it. This is why we have a country with no threat of being invaded for 50+ years (if we assume there was actually such a threat in WWII) spending trillions of dollars over those decades on its military power, instead of those resources being put to more socially beneficial uses.
#119
If you don’t know whether spending trillions will help the economy, why do it? Why endorse it? What we do know for a fact, is that if you spend that money, you will eventually have to pay it back and if you borrow to spend that money you will eat up a greater percentage of your GDP in paying interest.
So, what we have is at best inconclusive evidence that government deficit spending has any affect on stimulating the economy as balanced against very real debt levels that we know will occur. It seems to me that erring on the side not spending is more inline with Darrow and Disraeli than spending.
#121
The problem isn’t that the government is spending money per se, some is of course necessary, the problem is that the government doesn’t face a market test when it does.
Yes and no. Yes, there is no market test to determine the effectiveness of that spending but by the same token, the context in which you are doing the spending matters. If you have no debt and you make some bad purchasing decisions it is not nearly as bad as doing the same when you are up to your eyeballs in debt. Your ability to absorb risk is much lower when you have high level of debt.
I wish Rush were my uncle.
#122–Thomas==very sloppy thinking. Just to hint at the more fulsome response that will come another day:
If you don’t know whether spending trillions will help the economy, why do it? /// Because the weight of expert opinion at the time was to do it.
Why endorse it? /// I don’t. I am agnostic. I assume Obama held his nose and went with the experts.
What we do know for a fact, is that if you spend that money, you will eventually have to pay it back /// yes, with cheaper dollars
and if you borrow to spend that money you will eat up a greater percentage of your GDP in paying interest. /// True and non determinative of the relative risks of taking action vs not taking action.
So, what we have is at best inconclusive evidence that government deficit spending has any affect on stimulating the economy as balanced against very real debt levels that we know will occur. /// With the caveat that “everybody” agrees that spending does stimulate the economy, yes, the question still unanswered is the balance/risk of harm between not spending vs spending.
It seems to me that erring on the side not spending is more inline with Darrow and Disraeli than spending. /// When then you don’t understand what they said at all. I hope you are simply caught in an argument you felt forced to make?
BOTTOM LINE: The majority of expert opinion was in favor of all the spending. Anyone contesting this with more than agnosticism is a tool, ideologue, or an idiot.
Rush Limbaugh often calls himself an “entertainer.” He apparently doesn’t consider his show to be anything more than entertainment.
It should also be pointed out that the late great Soupy Sales considered himself an “entertainer.”
This implies that Rush considers himself to be no more knowledgeable about political affairs than Soupy Sales. That’s about right…
#125
If you don’t know whether spending trillions will help the economy, why do it? /// Because the weight of expert opinion at the time was to do it.
You are conveniently looking past common sense AND all the expert opinion that said just the opposite. Remember, we are not talking about TARP here, we’re only talking about the porkulus bill. Again, history has shown that the effects from government spending to get out of a recession are dubious and our current state of unemployment is proof of that.
I wonder, in your mind what would disprove the government spending theory? Would a debt load of 50% of GDP and still having double-digit unemployment? What about 80% of GDP? What about over 100%? How far down does the rabbit hole have to go to convince you that robbing Peter to pay Paul is a scheme that simply does not work?
What we do know for a fact, is that if you spend that money, you will eventually have to pay it back /// yes, with cheaper dollars
Are you actually suggesting that the plan was to go off the deep end with spending with the idea that we would simply devalue the dollar so that we could pay it back?! Wow. You might as well send G-men to everyone’s hope to rob them properly instead of making their life savings worthless. How could you not despise Obama and his party for devising such a plan if you actually believe that was his intent?
RE: Darrow and Disraeli
“It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know that ain’t so”
I also do not pretend to know what you clearly think you know other than to state that the evidence shows that government spending does not significantly change a country’s fortune’s in terms of getting out of a recession. I would take it as axiomatic that if you spend money, you have to pay it back and that if you borrow money, you have to pay back more than you borrowed. Where do you suppose that money comes from?
BOTTOM LINE: The majority of expert opinion was in favor of all the spending.
Wrong. The majority of the people to whom Obama wanted to listen might have been in favor of spending, but certainly not the majority of economists nor opposing politicians. That Obama was able to find as many Keynesians as he did is frankly amazing. His theories have been proven not to work as we see now with 20%+ unemployment. Anyone thinking otherwise is the true idealogue.
#125
That should read:
You might as well send G-men to everyone’s home to rob them properly instead of making their life savings worthless.
#127–Tommy==I don’t wish to be argumentative but you are just being silly. My position is agnostic: “I don’t know.” I think economics is the “dismal science” and would post with that nom de flame except I’ve googled it and its not as straight forward as I thought. I’m just being “logical” which may or may not hold some elements of the correct position BUT the probability of that far exceeds the probability of being right with bad logic and leaps of fantasy.
You say:
You are conveniently looking past common sense AND all the expert opinion that said just the opposite. /// If you think the world’s economic systems are understood and predictable using common sense, then you are a tool, an ideologue, or a fool. By definition, if I say the majority of expert opinion is in favor of the porkulus deficit spending I am not looking past the expert opinion just the opposite. I could be wrong, but I’m directly incorporating the opposing view, not looking past it.
Remember, we are not talking about TARP here, we’re only talking about the porkulus bill. Again, history has shown that the effects from government spending to get out of a recession are dubious and our current state of unemployment is proof of that. /// Sadly, not true. No way to guage how bad the situation would be if the pork was not spent and THAT is the whole point of the discussion.
I wonder, in your mind what would disprove the government spending theory? /// Nothing. I am not qualified to make a conclusion. My point is the experts disagree and they have spent a life time studying it. This emphasizes my point to you: you don’t know either. Silly to pretend your “opinion” is anything but blather.
Would a debt load of 50% of GDP and still having double-digit unemployment? What about 80% of GDP? What about over 100%? How far down does the rabbit hole have to go to convince you that robbing Peter to pay Paul is a scheme that simply does not work? /// I agree increasing deficits as a percentage of GDP must lead to an economic bankruptcy/failure. Where the absolute debt load and ability to recover is as all that interplays with other nations doing the same things to their economy and currency===I don’t know==neither do the experts===and NEITHER DO YOU.
What we do know for a fact, is that if you spend that money, you will eventually have to pay it back /// yes, with cheaper dollars
Are you actually suggesting that the plan was to go off the deep end with spending with the idea that we would simply devalue the dollar so that we could pay it back?! Wow. //// I don’t think there is much of a plan beyond a 3-6 month news release coupled with a hope and a prayer. I’m just agreeing with your point that failure to get our economy/tax policy/social planning in economic order will most likely if not certainly involve currency devaluation. Surely you can deal with the obvious?
You might as well send G-men to everyone’s hope to rob them properly instead of making their life savings worthless. //// Life savings being made worthless is the very issue we are addressing. How to best protect them all as part of maintaining living standards as best we may.
How could you not despise Obama and his party for devising such a plan if you actually believe that was his intent? /// Because, as stated in opposition to your Straw Man Rantings, I don’t believe that is Obama’s Intent and again: YOU DON’T KNOW EITHER.
RE: Darrow and Disraeli
“It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know that ain’t so” /// Agreed, as well as sometimes no matter what you know that is true will not avoid hard times. Thats the iron hand of economics–or is it steel?
I also do not pretend to know what you clearly think you know other than to state that the evidence shows that government spending does not significantly change a country’s fortune’s in terms of getting out of a recession. //// Hopefully that is what you don’t understand: YOU DON’T KNOW THAT. The great depression under Hoover, the Great Recession under Obama may both have been much worse had the spending not taken place. No one knows. YOU DON’T KNOW.
I would take it as axiomatic that if you spend money, you have to pay it back and that if you borrow money, you have to pay back more than you borrowed. Where do you suppose that money comes from? /// Future productivity of course. Would the USA be better off letting GM and Chrysler fail leaving only Ford? I don’t know and: YOU DON’T KNOW.
BOTTOM LINE: The majority of expert opinion was in favor of all the spending.
Wrong. The majority of the people to whom Obama wanted to listen might have been in favor of spending, but certainly not the majority of economists nor opposing politicians. /// Ok, we both agree that the majority of the criminals that Obama had access to, that he selected as his advisors, were of the spending pesuasion. Several other renowned economists criticized Obama for not spending TWICE AS MUCH! Who knows? I don’t know, and: YOU DON’T KNOW.
That Obama was able to find as many Keynesians as he did is frankly amazing. His theories have been proven not to work as we see now with 20%+ unemployment. /// For the 3-4th time, no, the current unemployment rate doesn’t prove anything. It could have been higher without the porkulous. In fact, I think “everyone” agrees the unemployment would be higher without the pork. The actual question is whether the harm caused by deficit spending to support employment now is better or worse than the harm that would have been caused by not spending the pork. Or do you “know” that the fear of a world wide banking/credit/currency collapse was purely illusory?
Anyone thinking otherwise is the true idealogue. /// You don’t know that and to be anything but agnostic and concerned is to be a tool, and ideologue, or a fool.
Logic.
Say Tommy==would it help explain your error and my position if I added that if anyone were of the opinion that Obama did exactly the right thing, or that he should have spent twice as much, or that he should have a second stimulus, or “whatever” that I would maintain the same agnostic position: “I don’t know===and I object to other people thinking they do.”
I don’t understand international economics, so I don’t hold hard and fast opinions on predicting outcomes. Same with plasma physics. Same with composing orchestral music. Same with the action of adding plastics to our environment as they may play out on human endocrine systems. etc.
Know yourself. Know your limits. Stay within.
Rush is right:
http://ft.com/cms/s/0/4524339a-d17a-11df-96d1-00144feabdc0.html
the result of widespread private-sector anxiety over America’s future, have defused much, if not most, of the impact of the administration’s fiscal stimulus. Moreover, the activism embodied in such programmes has itself stoked the degree of anxiety.
Not only is Rush right on re self interest, and how only a economic jackass won’t realize taxing profits away, and onerous regulation stops recovery from recession…the fear Obama has promulgated with his threats against the entrepreneurs among us, stopped them from business creation.
Also overturning the bond holders when nationalizing GM and bailing out the auto unions, assuming their ridiculous pension costs, destroyed investment by the rich.
Why invest when Obama might nationalize it, just like the other despots of banana republics.
Studies suggest it was the protection of investor rights via the bond process that changed the USA into an ecconomic powerhouse, while those that nationalize investment, remained poor.
Obama turned us into a third world banana republic, when he overturned the GM bond holder rights.
Every aspect of this recession, from the collapse via affordable housing wealth redistribution, to the lack of recovery now…is Obama and the Democrats fault, particularly Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the whole gaggle of progressive thieves.
Big Republican Lie No 1: Rich People create jobs.
Maybe so, but who wants to work as Paris Hiltons New BFF?
When ravers like Alfie take up your position – - – - – Stupid Humans. .
The real question is who was and is stoking the market and public anxiety that ruined much of the good impact of the stimulus?
The GOP and their quisling news parrot faux news have been betting on obstruction and hate and fear since Obama was elected, doing nothing buy block change and dampen hope, and now blame Obama for not getting things done. What horrible evil people.
127 Thomas
“I also do not pretend to know what you clearly think you know other than to state that the evidence shows that government spending does not significantly change a country’s fortune’s in terms of getting out of a recession.”
Nope that tiny little 250% spike in federal spending for the Second World War had nothing to do with the ending of the great depression and the 3 decades of prosperity that followed it.
Nope, nothing at all.
#131 Alfie – Get Rushes limp dick out of your mouth so we can understand what the fck you are saying. Oh and wipe that jizz off your chin.
Rash Limpdick is just a STINKING PILE OF TURDS !!!
And as for his “Political Opinions”, remember, his just an “entertainer” trying to generate headlines and ad revenue !!!
Rush is a marketing genius…one comment…what he calls a “media tweak” and look at the free advertisement of his show.
And he is right.
So as angry progressives tune it to cuss him out…a growing percentage of them are amazed, shake their heads, and confess…
“Rush is right!”
Obama is a Jackass.
Anyone expecting threats and slander will motivate businessmen to hire is a jackass.
I just hope, one day, my brain will be as big as Rush Limbaugh’s!
#135, meanwhile, your brain, if put on top of a razor…would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.
#129
RE: “I don’t know”
If you think the world’s economic systems are understood and predictable …
You make it sound as if we have no track record or history of trying this approach and seeing the effects. Trying to spend to get out of a recession has been tried on numerous occasions in recent history and it has never made a substantial impact on getting out of a recession but has had all kinds of ugly after effects like say currency devaluation due to high debt loads.
No way to guage how bad the situation would be if the pork was not spent and THAT is the whole point of the discussion.
You cannot on the one hand claim no one could could know how bad the situation might be and on the other hand claim that the experts clearly knew it was a good idea. Further, what you are endorsing in spending without consequence or justification. If we cannot determine, ever determine, whether the spending helped, hurt or did nothing, how will we know what to do in the future? What stops a future Congress from using this firehose method?
Look, I get that on the whole your perspective is that you don’t know if things would be better or worse with the stimulus bill. However, are you not at least a little pissed that you have someone else gambling with your money and your children’s (if you have any) money? You wonder why I rail against higher taxes and this is one of the reasons: there is no consequence for Congress gambling or pissing away that money. In fact, you could argue just the opposite: adding pork to bills helps their chances of re-election at the cost of everyone’s wallet.