Rush Refuses To Say Whether Successful Obama Fix Of Economy Would Be Good For The Country
Okay, as noted below, I somehow ended up in an extended email exchange with Rush Limbaugh. In it, Rush repeatedly insisted that his desire for President Obama to fail didn’t mean he didn’t want the country to “succeed.”
I asked him if Obama’s policies did succeed in fixing the economy, then would that be good for the country? He refused to answer. Here’s our exchange.
After I asked Rush a question about the Michael Steele fight, Rush replied:
[P]lease, Greg, try to stand out from the MSM chorus and NOT distort, as they all are, on behalf of the Obama Admin, my meaning on wanting him to fail. I want the country to SUCCEED, as I have said until I am blue in the face.
I answered:
Rush, if I could ask a follow-up question, if Obama’s policies are designed to help the economy, and those policies fail — as you’ve said you want — doesn’t the economy, and by extention [sic] the country, suffer as a result?
Rush replied:
Obama’s policies are NOT designed to help the economy, and they won’t. That is why I want them to fail. Take a look around, Greg. We have been stimulating and spending for a year now and wealth is vanishing from Wall Street, people are losing jobs and savings. His policies stimulate only government and attack wealth, producers and achievers. Obama’s policies are not new, they are not hope, they are not change. They are page 1 of the standard liberal playbook. Tax and spend. And they have not generated econ recovery or private sector growth in all of history.
I asked:
I understand that you don’t think Obama’s policies are destined to succeed. Reasonable people can disagree about that. However, putting aside the question of what the policies are destined to do, is it true that if they succeed in their stated goal of righting the economy — however far-fetched that may be to you and others — then would that be good for the country?
Or, alternatively put, putting aside the question of what the policies are in your view destined to do, is it true that if they fail in their stated goal of righting the economy, won’t the country suffer further as a result?
Rush answered:
I reject your premise, especially since you are rejecting my answers. I will not put aside the question of what the policies are destined to do because that IS THE POINT.
At that I thanked Rush for the time, since his noon show was approaching. The takeaway here seems clear: Rush won’t say that it would be good for the country if Obama’s policies do succeed in righting the economy.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
.
To quote one of my favorite DJs from way back, Dan Ingram, “You can’t argue with a sick mind, so don’t try.”
.
.
For a guy who talks for a living, he’s a terrible debater.
E-mailing Rush? My advice is clean your hard drive and run an anti-virus program.
Nice try Gregg. If he would have answered your questions, he would have committed the mortal sin of talk radio, that being suggesting the other sides position may work.
They will never concede an inch on policy. It’s either their way or the highway.
In the mean time he has, along with the rest of the right wing CNBC crowd, absolutely convinced 10%-20% of the voting population no matter what Obama does, his decisions will negatively affect the economy.
No matter what the results are in 2-3 years, they will never concede much like when they rant on Reagan’s speeches of fiscal conservativeness they leave out the fact his deficits sky-rocketed. This can be attributed to the fact Rush and many conservatives suffer from Narcissistic personality disorder. http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
One of the symptoms is selective memory disorder. They may intentionally leave out the fact but over time, loss details such as these become ingrained.
Anyways, congrats on the exclusive from the master of the Republicans.
Greg , Do you feel “impotent” now that you and Rush are email buddies?
Rush is a domestic terrorist. He is a self indulgent fool.
In my opinion, the most important effect of this “Rush is the leader of the GOP” campaign is to undermine the credibility and authority of the official leaders of the party, Steele, Cantor, etc. If they cannot stand up to someone like Limbaugh, how can their followers or their opposition possibly take them seriously on politics or policy?
Trevor J — being able to cut off the mic of anyone who disagrees with you tends to cause your debating skills to atrophy.
Personally, my favorite bit is how he (and other conservatives like McCain) declare that since Obama’s policies aren’t radically different from past successful center-left policies (failing to incorporate sufficient conservative ideas, presumably), they aren’t “change.” Because progressive policies couldn’t possibly be the change from the Bush Administration everyone voted for, no, to be true to his promises, Obama has to propose policies that are different from anything ever done before!
You see the problem is Stefanopoulos did not ask the right questions. He should get a list of acceptable questions from Rush prior to interviews.
Also, how dare you follow up his answers with questions. Also, unless you were routing for the Steelers and think Jindal was BRILLIANT last Tuesday PM, do not bother talking (emailing) him. The neediness and insecurity this man, unapologetic, displays is mind boggling.
It’s funny how time warped Rush’s comments are. He claims the stimulus has failed for a year when Obama has been in office for 40 days. The 4th Q ‘08 collapse is somehow the fault of “tax and spend”.
A second grader could debate with better logic.
Rush doesn’t want Obama’s policies to succeed because that would mean he would have to completely revamp his ideology. On second thought, it SHOULD mean that, but neither he nor his fellow Republicans changed their beliefs after they predicted Clinton would wreck the economy with his tax increases on the rich and increased help to the poor. Republicans avoided admitting how wrong they were even after we had record numbers moving out of poverty, increased productivity, a surplus, and prosperity for all income levels. If they can ignore that kind of proof they will never give up their free market fundamentalist delusions.
And where does Rush get off telling anyone not to distort facts? I remember him being interviewed by Tim Russert on MTP years ago. Tim challenged Rush about several fact-challenged claims he had been making. Rush’s response was to say he was an entertainer and therefore had no obligation to tell the truth. I was appalled that Russert let this slide and that few Dems or MSM journalistists picked up on it. Someone needs to find that video or at least the transcript and post it online.
“For a guy who talks for a living, he’s a terrible debater.” -TrevorJ
That’s because he’s not a debater TrevorJ, he’s a conservative talk show radio host and rants for a living. He doesn’t actually debate people on his show. That’s why all the callers are dittoheads, and any differing opinion is filtered out. One slips by every once in a while, but overall, it’s a Rush Limbaugh ***-kissing and he just spews what on his narcotic addicted mind.
Greg – as I read the questions and answers, I want to commend you first on your tone. I think you’ve probably facilitated future conversations. You pressed on the right question, of course, as this is the soft underbelly in his “argument”. And he had to avoid it because of that. Rush might be a lot of things but politically/strategically stupid isn’t one of them.
LimpBaugh is a disingenuous ********* and a treasonous sack of putrid, self-important flatulence.
And Michael is absolutely right: LimpBaugh is NOT a debater; he’s a demagogic, arrogant, one-note extremist pontificater who WILL NOT PERMIT DISSENSION IN HIS DELUDED, ONE-MAN ECHO CHAMBER. He is the embodiment of narcissistic fascism in 82-inch-waist trousers.
Rush is a highly paid propogandist with a $300 MILLION contract to stay on the radio until 2012. This is all a scam to distract and tear apart and divide a nation – it is funded by the super rich for the super rich. The same men who OWN the RNC. The same men who told Mikey Steele to shut up and apologize for calling Rush’s word’s ugly.
After all Steele and Rush work for the same ultra-wealthy scum that just destroyed America in the last 8 years.
As a good friend of someone who worked at the late Lehman Brothers – it was common knowledge that the stock market was going to crash a year ago. It was common knowledge amoung insiders to take money out now.
They sold high and now can buy low.
Come on people – we are all being scammed – everyone who know someone who worked on Wall Street nows it.
Rush is just an employee who plays bad cop… while the other RNC Corporate Employees pay less obnoxious cops.
Hey, Greg! According to TPM, you got called out by name on Rush’s show today! Congratulations!
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.
Rush knows that Obama’s policies will fail. Therefore he is not interested in discussing the counterfactual “what if they don’t fail”. Nor is he interested in talking about how he knows they can only fail. Rather he is interested in talking about how he hopes the policies that he knows will fail will indeed fail.
That’s an interesting take on the situation, that one.
I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I’m actually going to defend Rush.
Even though his position isn’t grounded in reality, it is still cogent. He believes that if Obama’s agenda succeeds America will suffer and that if it fails it will be better off. So he doesn’t actually want America to fail (even though he’s not helping himself by saying things that could be taken that way). And he believes that it is absolutely impossible that Obama’s policies will improve the economy so there is no point in answering a question with a premise like that.
(It’s like asking a reasonable person, “What if signing Brett Favre, will make the Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl?” Most reasonable people would reject the premise. And to Rush the premise that Obama’s policies will improve the economy are just as absurd as Brett Favre taking the Lions to the Super Bowl.)
Obama is a big boy, he’s not a child who will be scared if some people don’t support him. Why is so much energy being committed to this stupid nonsense? I build websites for nonprofits nationwide and my poor clients (nonprofits) are being GUTTED right now. Their reserve funds are destroyed, their much needed corporate and private donations are way down (and those supporters are under full attack), the people they serve are going to be in real trouble this year. Where’s the focus on that?! I don’t care who is bad-mouthing who, you all better wake up and demand better results out of this lack luster federal government! The ship is sinking! Democrats have a majority in Congress and the White House. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS!!?? THE **** THEY ARE PASSING DOES NOT WORK!!
“He believes that if Obama’s agenda succeeds America will suffer and that if it fails it will be better off. So he doesn’t actually want America to fail (even though he’s not helping himself by saying things that could be taken that way). And he believes that it is absolutely impossible that Obama’s policies will improve the economy so there is no point in answering a question with a premise like that.”
That sort of thinking might be acceptable from an 8 year old, but “I refuse to even consider any possibility that doesn’t conform to my opinion” is ridiculous in a supposed grown up.
And Rush does want the country to suffer. His initial comment was that he wanted Obama to fail. No qualifiers. No explanations. No elaborations. He wants Obama to fail and doesn’t care what that means for the country. All the other excuses and modifications to his initial statement are things that Rush added not just days, but a week or so afterwards. Rush would rather America suffer than have to reconsider his ideology.
Mike
It’s even better than that! There has NOT been any taxing; only spending. Every dime spent so far is within the Limbaugh boundaries of borrowed money from Asia. There hasn’t been any taxing!
Further, what the f*ck is wrong with them? Tax rates on 2% of the population are going up to Clinton administration levels and these tools freak out. Limabugh is going to be taxed 9 more percent on his 40 million plus a year and he whines there will be a disincentive? Is that the same disincentive that caused Limbaugh’s show to mushroom in the 90’s?
They are morons
@ricardo2011 – I understand your line of reasoning, and my initial reaction was along those lines. However, I then realized that if that’s the case, then Rush has created an unsustainable logical absurdity. He has made a point of stating, repeatedly, that he wants Obama’s agenda to fail. Then, he turned around and said that Greg’s question was moot because there is no possible way Obama’s plan will succeed. But if there’s no possible way it can succeed, then why say, over and over and over again, that he’s hoping for it to fail? If Rush was being honest in this email exchange about his own views on the matter, then he would view all his own previous assertions would have been even more absurd than Greg’s question. If that were the case, there would have been no need for him to make them – unless, of course, he was simply being an empty blowhard, trying to stir up publicity by saying things that he knows are meaningless. Which, let’s face it, is most likely the case.
I *could* see a legitimate line of argument in which he said that he wants the president’s agenda to fail regardless of whether or not it succeeds in its stated purpose, because such a success would mean the perpetuation of economic systems that go against the moral principles he values most highly – pure capitalism, small government, no ‘welfare state,’ etc. etc. That, at least, would be similar to the views of some Iraq protesters who wanted that war to fail simply because, if it succeeded, then it would achieve a legitimacy it had no right to in their eyes – that success or no success, we should never have been there in the first place, and the ends didn’t justify the means, and a “victory” might very likely mean that people would forget that. In both cases, those “hoping for failure” favor *principles* over *outcome* – what Lawrence Kohlberg would give label as “Sixth-Level” moral decision making … for whatever that’s worth.
But that’s not what Limbaugh said. All he’s saying, apparently, is that he wants Obama’s plan to fail, because … Obama’s plan’s going to fail. Huh?
Ick. Sorry about all the grammatical goofs above. Must proof next time.
@Tacroy80. It’s really quite simple. What Rush is saying is that he does not believe the actual intention of the stimulus bill or the rest of the Obama agenda is to stimulate or fix the economy. And further, since it was not designed to do so to begin with it has no chance of helping the economy in any sort of meaningful or long-term way. So there is no contradiction or logical inconsistency here. The error is in the assumptions you are making about what Rush said or what he believes when he has very clearly explained this to anyone willing to listen on multiple occasions.
There is not a single one among you that understands what Rush is saying. He wants Obama’s policies to fail because if they succeed we will have seen a dramatic departure from the principles behind our existing Constitution. Government will be in charge of a huge part of our economy and we will have virtually abandoned free-market economics. Who among you cannot accept the fact that our Constitution has laid the groundwork for the greatest economy in the history of the world? Why on earth would we want to abandon its principles? Socialism has failed in every instance it has been tried. Why should we even consider going down that path?
“But that’s not what Limbaugh said. All he’s saying, apparently, is that he wants Obama’s plan to fail, because … Obama’s plan’s going to fail. Huh?”
Tacroy, he could be saying that he wants his plan to fail to pass, because if it is passes it will fail. So what he is saying is ambiguous and could either be intrepreted as that he wants it to fail or that he wants it to fail to pass. Both would be failures of the plan, but mean completely different things. If he just means that he wants it to fail to pass, then his view makes sense and he doesn’t want to harm the country.
“What Rush is saying is that he does not believe the actual intention of the stimulus bill or the rest of the Obama agenda is to stimulate or fix the economy. And further, since it was not designed to do so to begin with it has no chance of helping the economy in any sort of meaningful or long-term way.”
That’s only what Rush said after taking a long time to come up with excuses for his initial statement. As Rush has said, “words mean things”. When he said he wanted Obama to fail, that is exactly what he meant because if Obama succeeded, it would mean Rush’s ideology was wrong. It’s that simple and efforts by dittoheads to deny that are silly.
Mike
…in case anyone is interested in basing their opinion on fact, here is a link to the transcript where Rush first made the statement that he hopes Obama fails.
http://tinyurl.com/9dgs7v
You may not agree with his perspective or beliefs, but to attempt to twist the logic behind his statements to mean that he wants the economy and/or the country to fail…it’s intellectually dishonest to say the least. You should hold yourselves to a higher standard of reason.
No Mike, that is simply not the case as evidenced by my prior post. Only one of us is basing our statements on assumptions and innuendo…and it’s not me.
Why is this man getting any air time at all? Like it or not, the Dems are in power, the GOP is irrelevant. Why is the media filled with talk about these squeaky little dust mites instead of the people whose policies and personalities will shape our lives for at least the next four years? All I hear about is a few comments here and there about Pelosi, and some articles about people in the Obama administration (and of course, lots about Obama). Come on, there are a lot more Democrats than that. Obama isn’t carrying this whole thing alone. Let’s move on to subjects that matter.
The elephant is dead, people. The only movement you’re seeing is flies and maggots. It’ll be a while before we see a new wave of conservatives, and they won’t look, think or talk like Limbaugh. Regardless of ideology, when it comes to leadership, most people want more substance than the empty bellowing and bankrupt ideas he offers. His day is over. I’m thinking that the new conservatives will be more like Lincoln than Rush.
“No Mike, that is simply not the case as evidenced by my prior post. ”
No, Wes, you’ve proven my point and that your reading comprehension skills are quite lacking. Rush was not talking about Obama failing to implement his policies. He did not say “I hope Obama fails to get what he wants”. He did not say “I think Obama will fail”. He did not say “I know Obama will fail”. He did not say “If Obama gets what he wants, it will be terrible for the country”. He said “I hope Obama fails”.
Maybe you want to difine the issue like an 8 year old along with Rush, but the rest of us realize that if Obama fails, the country will suffer. He’s the President and he’s the only President we’ve got for the next 4 years. Democrats will control the Congress for the next two years, at least. And we’ve got a massive economic and financial problem staring us down. To hope Obama fails is to wish America to suffer. The best excuse you can make for Rush is he wants people to suffer now, so things can be better later. But neither he nor any of his defenders have made that argument.
Mike
Ok Mike. Since you put so much time and energy into writing a post expounding on what Rush did NOT say, let me save everyone a little time and just copy in verbatim the relevant quote:
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. 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.
My objective was only to get the facts on the record here. I’ll let my “reading comprehension skills” stand for themselves. I was not the one who made a fool of myself by insisting that Rush only started to put this spin on his statement after this controversy erupted. You should give Rush his due…he clearly knew that his statement was going to lead to this sort of silliness.
Sorry…reformatted.
Ok, Mike. Since you put so much time and energy into writing a post expounding on what Rush did NOT say, let me save everyone a little time and just copy in verbatim the relevant quote:
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. 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.
My objective was only to get the facts on the record here. I’ll let my “reading comprehension skills” stand for themselves. I was not the one who made a fool of myself by insisting that Rush only started to put this spin on his statement after this controversy erupted. You should give Rush his due…he clearly knew that his statement was going to lead to this sort of silliness.
@Wes: “What Rush is saying is that he does not believe the actual intention of the stimulus bill or the rest of the Obama agenda is to stimulate or fix the economy.” Leaving aside the veracity of Rush’s habitual claims to psychic abilities, at least with regard to reading the “true motivations” of “the liberals” – that opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of Greg’s question. What Greg was asking was, regardless of any diabolical hidden agendas Obama may or may not have, if the plan were to succeed at its STATED OBJECTIVE, would Limbaugh be happy about it or not? Rush refused to answer the question.
“And further, since it was not designed to do so to begin with it has no chance of helping the economy in any sort of meaningful or long-term way.” To reiterate: if he thinks it has absolutely no chance of working anyway, then why make so much noise about how much he wants it to fail? His reasoning, this far, has been: “it will fail. Therefore, I want it to fail.” That makes zero sense.
He’s been pretty fuzzy on what, exactly, he wants the program to fail at – since he just keeps adding things on slowly, my impression is that he’s just making it up as he goes along – a platitude here, a conspiracy theory there. If, however, it’s the case that he really believes this story he’s constructed, then even he has to admit that Obama’s eeeevil plans are inextricably linked to the extent to which this bill succeeds in helping the economy – if one “fails,” the other “fails” as well. But for some reason, Limbaugh seems to be avoiding questions about that. Again, if he could come right out and say that he hopes the stimulus plan completely flushes the economy down the toilet because of the principle of the thing, that would at least be intellectually honest, if morally reprehensible. But his refusal to acknowledge and speak to the implications of his words lead me to believe that he just hasn’t actually given any serious thought to the matter, and is just making it up as he goes along for publicity’s sake.
@ricardo – that might have been the case when he was saying it a few weeks ago, but he’s stil saying it, and the bill has *already* passed.
@MarkyP: That was the substance of the “legitimate” argument I mentioned. But he *hasn’t* said that. It might be what *you* think, but it’s not what he’s said. If anything, in this email exchange, he’s made it clear that he just hasn’t thought about it that much (the transcript posted above was a) when he was talking about the bill itself passing, and b) just the first iteration of the “it’s going to fail, so I hope it fails” line of reasoning.) Again, as much as I disagree with that (i.e. *your*) viewpoint, at least I could respect it. But as MBunge wrote, Limbaugh has repeatedly refused to speak to whether or not he would embrace the suffering that the failure of this plan would cause.
The ideology behind Obama’s plan has been causing suffering for 80 years. Hope and Change notwithstanding, the fundamental laws of economics and human nature have not changed. When the economy finally hits bottom and starts to recover it will be in spite of, not because of the re-distributionist policies of this administration. It’s clear the investor class knows this as evidenced by the state of the financial markets. But hey, we’re the enemy, right?
Sounds like he handed you your a– Greg. Obama-butt-buddy. How’s that stock market for you libby’s. Oh wait, I forgot, most of yall count on your fingers.
Quote: The ideology behind Obama’s plan has been causing suffering for 80 years.”
Let’s see: That would be the Great Depression when Hoover was President! Amity Shales’ maasive misinformation not withstanding, I recall those days very well; I remember when My father finall got a job only after the New Deal came in. I also remember that the unemployment rate was reduced by 1/2 by 1937 and went up only after FDR mistakenly tried to balance the budget in 1937.
Then there is the Clinton Administration that inherited a recession from Bush I in 1994 and turned the tables by increasing employment and balancing the budget for the first time after the many deficit years from Reagan and Bush I .
Eighty years of life has left me with some c lear memories and the knowledge that Lafferism and trickledown economics do not work.
Greg, A for effort in trying to trick Limbaugh into saying a good economy is bad for America. Unfortunately, Limbaugh showed that you are only happy when the answers meet your agenda, and if they don’t, you will twist questions until you can distort things to fit your script. Obviously, you have no idea what it means to reject the premise of a question. Your problem is that you incorrectly believe that the Obama Administration will be judging the success of their policies on economic measurements. However, they will actually be judging the success of their policies on whether or not they are passed into Law. Sorry I just spoiled the surprise
Greg: Good for you. Now try speaking truth to power — you know, to power. The people running things, not the ones talking on the radio. Question Authority. Unless you seriously think Limbaugh really counts in all this? Now try and get an equally compelling discussion from Obama. Limbaugh gave you more access and straighter answers than anything coming out of Washington from either party, and yet your acting all “gotcha.”
With a listenership of less than 7 percent of the nation’s population, this guy exudes astounding power. Without a doubt, Rush Limbaugh more or less saved the dying medium of AM radio. Give him that. To have a thrice-divorced drug addict who goes on ***-holidays in the Dominican Republic as the titular head of the rump party (no pun intended), a party that regularly claims the moral high ground, now that’s astounding.
After 8 long years of carrying water for W. Bush the man seems to be feeling his oats enough to publicly take down anyone on his side who disagrees with him,even with mere academic criticism, and my sense is eventually they’ll turn on him.
The irony is he’s one of the first direct beneficiaries of the various attempts to turn the economy around. GM was a major sponsor until the last quarter of ‘08. Nothing sinister in that, the talkers enjoy a tiny plurality of plus or minus ten percent in every market, they probably advertising on black radio and latino raddio and AirAmerica for all I know, wherever there’s a market share. It stopped, either for political cover while they appealed for a bail-out from a democratic congress or just as likely in a general belt-tightening. They’re back now and either way it’s because the bail-out went through.
You are completely disingenuous. Rush Limbaugh has made it clear that he wants the economy to recover. He’s obviously going to contend that any economic recovery will be in spite of big government and not because of it, and that Obama’s policies are a huge negative for liberty in the long term. If you contend that he meant otherwise you are either an idiot or a ******* liar.
I am completely disinguous.
Sir,
What you were really asking Rush is why the current economic policies, which are designed to take away wealth from the wealthy, should be praised for attempting to resdistribute wealth. I spent 28 years earning my wealth (such that it is) and have yet to hear a rational (emphasis here on rational so to all readers out there pls don’t lambaste me with name calling and non-thinking, illogical arguments) reason why I should give a larger share of my wealth to those who are not even trying. I understand the burden of living in a society which takes care of the permanent poor and bear that burden gladly as long as it is fair. The new policies are not fair and quite a bit of overreach.
I, declare I also hope the socialist policies fail. If they fail, I can hire more workers at higher wages and treat them fairly–as long as they keep up their part of the bargain and work–and create more wealth for all and esp me. (Personal greed makes our economic engine work so either get used to it or google “Milton Friedman greed video” (Heck, here is the URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A) and at least listen to an alternate point of view. For those economic dunderheads out there, let me make the argument in concrete terms. Currently, every hour I work, I pay 40 cents for each dollar I make. I choose to work–and keep other people employed–because that extra 60 cents is worth it to me. Under the new policies, according to the Wall Street Journal analysis last Thursday, for each extra hour I work, I will make potentially not a penny more for my effort. Unless I make more money, I will not wrok more. Would you?
Under the current rules, when I make more money, I pay more taxes. When you raise my taxes, I will choose to work less because it isn’t worth no increased pay to be away from my wife, kids and dogs. So, I will work less than I would have and thus pay less taxes.
YOU will pickup the extra share of what these new policies need to work. Just watch. The current assessment (again, WSJ) will that if you make as little as $70,000 a year, you will pick up substantially more burden…when I reduce my work, you will pay even more in taxes.
Let me know how that increased tax burden goes cause it ain’t gonna be me.
So, yes Virginia, I hope Obameconomics does fail: quickly, visibily, and totally.
Signed, A producer of wealth once again reading “Atlas Shrugged”
I agree with AVOCATIONAVIATOR. If those who disagree would get off the “Hate” bandwagon and do some research and study the Constitution, you would find there are many points to consider. If you really want to lose most of your freedoms, that IS your choice. It is NOT mine! Too many people have died to defend our freedoms for me to support those who want to take them away. When has the Government ever shown that it can do something better than private people? Yes, there are rotten apples in many barrels, but it doesn’t mean you should throw out the whole barrel. Please people, THINK THINK THINK! Look beyond the rhetoric and hate speech…
All of you people are such myopic brain dead sheep. How can any of you HONESTLY act incredulous that someone said they want Obama to fail. Everyone on this blog and every single Democrat (except maybe Lieberman) continually and ferrociously hoped and prayed and cheered for President Bush to fail. All of you wnated Bush to fail and at a time of war. In fact, most of you flat out stated that he did fail. The war failed, the surge failed, Bush failed was the constant drum beat. But now that the empty suit that you blindly follow is in office, it is wrong for anyone to want him to fail. You tell me how that is remotely intelectually honest.
Fundamental Classic Economy theory explain why Obama’s plan will fail. Command economies don’t work – more government controls, through regulation and taxation, mean more of a command role in the economy!
What would an Obama Success look like? High taxes on carbon (ie, Energy)? ‘The Rich’ paying an even greater share of the govt bill? Healthcare run by VA type bureaucrats?
That is what he is aiming for! I don’t want it. I hope it fails because I value liberty.
Greg — As several here have already pointed out, “success” to Obama isn’t about “righting the economy”. It’s absurd to think that Limbaugh wants the economy to fail. This isn’t about the economy!
It is about Obama’s wish to see more and more government control foisted upon us (government-run healthcare, carbon taxes, etc).
So the economy? It may recover before Obama leaves office, and it may not. But any true conservative is hoping that Obama fails, because the price (literally and figuratively) of what he wants to do is one that our children and grandchildren will be paying for a long time.
He wont say it will work because he said it WONT. READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE. A lot of words and you cant comprehend his statement. The man does not believe Obamas plans will work. It’s juvenile for you to ask him to surmise “But what if…what if…?? Its fantasy thinking.
He said IF Obama is successful, then we become a socialist country and blow the Constitution out of the water.
Its really very simple….lol
Of course I want O’bama to succeed in his restructuring of our economy – When we extract the money from the rich, we must insure they cannot ever quit working, or even slow down – we should identify those who have been successful, and they shall be forever marked – they must produce, so the rest of us can be housed and fed, never again will the common man or woman be in need, as we will have an everlasting source, insured by our laws, that these greedy and selfish business people will now produce for us.
No Surprise that GM had to sink like the Titanic.. Just the pain and hard work of 300 Million Taxpayers going down the drain.. Whose responsible for that?
Excellent article, I enjoy every article I read here. Thanks,
and keep bloggin!