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.”
4
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
“Actually, no it did not. Roosevelt practiced Keynesian economics for eight years with no results. It wasn’t until WWII that we got out of the Great Depression. You cannot spend your way out of recession. ”
Yeah. The gov’t didn’t spend any money during WWII.
#86
Taxes on wages have always been allowed. The 16th Amendment and subsequent challenges simply formalized what other types of incomes were not considered direct taxes and thus taxable as income tax. From Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad:
As stated in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
Thus, it was not difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax. It had already been done at other times in US history. What was problematic is that some types of income were excluded from being taxable.
OK 80% sounds good.
A significant difference between 1951 and 2010 is that it is far easier to move your money into tax free investments than it was in 1951. Thus, if you go that route end, you will likely end up with lower tax revenue.
#96
You are conveniently forgetting the first eight years that Roosevelt wasted with government spending that did nothing.To get us out of the Great Depression required a mobilization of the entire country for war and the drafting of nearly half its population. Is that what you are suggesting we need now?
lmao! -thats some funny sh*t.
Although.. i think he was being too kind by applying the sentiment only to Mr. O’s cluelessness of capitalism.
-s
98 -Thomas
Please explain how Hoover’s non government interference policy did anything to help before FDR took office.
You are quick to claim that the new deals were money wasted and did nothing. Not true. Things were gradually getting better until WWII, the deficit spending for the war was the icing on the cake. National debt held steady until a significant increase for the war.The economy grew 58% for the 8 years before the war. Unemployment fluctuated before the war, but was down over all.
The “worthless” stimulus spending got people working and paid for a lot of infrastructure that we still enjoy today. TVA is an excellent example.
You are conveniently forgetting a lot of facts as well.
#58–Benji==”their” is grammatically correct but is exactly wrong when evaluating what a society takes to serve its members:
their = “I got mine, screw you.”
And too many good folks such as yourself can’t even see it when it is tangentially pointed out to you.
Sad.
“Cluelessness regarding capitalism.”===is there any other deeper understanding in the cartoon economics of self destruction at play in America? I don’t see it.
I have to agree that there is no news here.
The “Jackass” is the mascot of the Democrat party and, I’m sure it was meant as a term of endearment.
It is true that Obama is an “economic illiterate” but that is so nearly a universal condition I don’t see how that could cause any embarrassment.
The Democrat method of wealth building is still as workable as ever. If you want money, just take it. Pretty obvious, really.
My take on the Democrats:
Feeding, not leading.
Somebody==and what is your summary of the disasters we have had under the Pukes?
#100
The unemployment rate in 1939 was 17% and this despite numerous years of crazy spending on infrastructure that was in fact actually needed. If it takes spending 50% of GDP to make fractional improvements in the economy over a decade, I’d rather let the economy improve on its own. However, today it is a different story. You cannot play the same trick twice. Obama’s spending has done nothing but make matters worse. The types of infrastructure which the porkulus bill addresses (in tiny amounts since most of it is pork) is primarily repairs and minor improvements. The damns are built, the highways already exist. The unemployment rate is not only higher than when he took office, it is higher than his own estimate despite plunging us into debt levels that boggle the mind. Even the rich will never be able to pay for Obama’s deficit spending.
As I have said, the government really cannot do much (outside of drafting half the population) to stimulate the economy but they can do plenty to make it worse. Case in point: Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley bill. That single piece of legislation made the recession into a depression. Thus, Hoover did not sit by idle (if he had, he might have had a chance at re-election). He actively made it worse just has Obama has.
This is hilarious. The left is so desperate to attack Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc and that’s the best they could come up with?
Maybe they should just stick to drumming up fake scandals against Republicans, and bringing false charges for political reasons, like with Tom Delay? What ever happened to that case?
Obama is a jackass and is screwing things up. I dont see where the problem is with this. Other than usual liberal tears over every damn thing.
#82
Actually, the 16th Amendment does not afford the Federal government the power to tax income. That authority has always existed according to the courts (despite the “no direct tax” clause in the Constitution).
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This basically refers to a tax on property, such as a tax based on the value of land, as well as a capitation.
Subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whateve
If memory serves me The Congress is part of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government of the United States of America.
#83
You cannot spend your way out of recession.
Neither can you balance the budget, pay down debt and run the country effectively without taxation.
Obama and Bush were lucky as their 700+ billion dollar gamble has been paid back and should come to only 50-70 billion dollars. They dodged a bullet, but not by much.
Cursor_
#106
Obama is neither more nor less a jackass than most of the presidents we have had.
There is a tradition in the US that we have had more mediocre or bad presidents than good ones. That is normal for all nations over time.
Not everyone can be a Lincoln or Madison and not all of them are as bad as Harding and Nixon.
But the main issue still remains that the US is in the situation that existed before 1775. There is no representation for the middle and lower class. Only for the rich.
The present form of government is inadequate to govern, It needs to be replaced.
Cursor_
#89, JMRouse,
Yes, that is a reasonable question. Of course none of it can be proven or disproven. you can look at evidence and theory, but that’s as far as it goes.
What I can say is that people here are too focused on current consumption, i.e. “the rich don’t spend enough of their money so we should tax it and spend it for them,” when current consumption is only a piece of the growth puzzle. Growth also requires investment in new innovation and capital in order to be sustained over the long run, and investment requires savings. The rich are traditionally the largest source of savings available for investment.
#107
If you are trying to imply that Congress did not already have the authority to tax income prior to the 16th Amendment, you are wrong. Read the rest of my post. As the Courts stated, the 16th Amendment did not provide Congress any power it did not already have. All that it did was to clarify certain types of incomes as not being a direct tax and thus eligible for taxing as income tax. The Courts are also part of the Federal government and also charged with interpreting the Constitution.
Neither can you balance the budget, pay down debt and run the country effectively without taxation.
We have no tax revenue of any kind whatsoever? Really? When did that happen. You mean that the Federal government has no tax revenue at all? Shocking. Oh wait, they do. Yeah, and what did they do with that tax money? Dumped into a pile, pissed on it and lit it on fire with the porkulus bill. Sorry but the Federal government already has enough revenue. You show me four years of balanced budget and then I’ll hear arguments as to whether we should increase taxes.
Obama and Bush were lucky as their 700+ billion dollar gamble has been paid back and should come to only 50-70 billion dollars.
Actually, TARP was very successful. It either broke even or made a little. It was the bailout of the people’s mortgages that has been unsuccessful. The vast majority of people that the government tried to help with their mortgages ended up foreclosing anyway.
Further, TARP wasn’t intended as economic stimulus. It was meant as a safety net. It was the stimulus bill that was meant to actually help the economy and that has been a failure.
104# – Thomas
And Unemployment was 14.3% in 1937. Down from 25% when he took office. I can cherry pick numbers too.
He did not make things worse in any measurable way. Things were improving, albeit slowly. Bottom line is that things were really bad and it was going to take a lot to recover no matter what. There was no magic bullet. There isn’t one now.
I’ll give you another difference between then and now: They tightened regulation to stop the sort of shenanigans that contributed to the crash. Those policies served us well until they were repealed. This go-round we learned nothing and changed nothing.
The most dangerous problem is not the stimulus. Its that this can happen again tomorrow.
#104
1939 was effectively the last year before the war effort started. It’s not like I picked that date accidentally. If we are going to cherry pick numbers why don’t pick 1933 – 24.9% unemployment, 1934 – 21.9% unemployment, 1938 – 19% unemployment. Yes, what a stellar record for government spending getting us out of a depression. Fundamentally, using government spending to get out of a recession is robbing Peter to pay Paul. You are taking money from people and out of the economy, putting a portion of it (it is never 100% or even 20%…) back by giving it to others and hoping they spend it rather than put it in the bank. There are other examples of where government spending does not work to get one out of a recession. Ask the Japanese how that government spending is helping them get out of a recession. Over the long haul, deficit spending hurts the country more than helps it unless the reason is something catastrophic like a war. Let’s not forget that Hoover also dramatically increased government spending (although not as ridiculous as Roosevelt) and that didn’t do much to help after the crash.
The most dangerous problem is not the stimulus. Its that this can happen again tomorrow.
The most dangerous problem today is not the porkulus bill, this is true. In fact, deficit spending is never the most pressing problem at the time it is spent.
#93 Mr MiGu said, “to vote against their self interests”
I will determine what my interest are when I vote, you elitist. That is the most condescending line I have ever heard.
101 bobbo said something about how wrong it was to take their ball home.
Reagan would only make two movies a year when the highest income bracket was at 90%. If he did three movies, then he would have taken home less money because he would have been paying the 90% rate. When Kennedy lowered taxes, Reagan did more movies because he could take home more than 10 cents on the dollar. Higher taxes really do put a damper on economic activity.
Ever time taxes are lowered, revenue actually goes up. That is a fact.
I actually already referenced the Japanese recession of the 90’s. Their refusal to spend for stimulus out of fear of deficits exacerbated the problem and lengthened the recession. In the end they had to spend the money anyway when doing nothing – big surprise – did nothing.
So your position is: stimulus spending is always bad. My position is: Its not good but its sometimes necessary. We have not remedied the situation that made the spending necessary.
You rail against the effect without addressing the cause.
113 -Benjamin
Always? Really?
Not according to the CBO in 2005:
“In the paper’s most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.”
Shortfalls and federal borrowing? How can that be? Lowering taxes *always* increases revenue…
“Limbaugh’s Obama Rant, Calls Prez a “Jackass” and More!” Obviously it would take one to know one.
Benjamin–how many times in a row can you take my bon motes so incorrectly? Maybe this will help:
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
Of course, that is Keynes response to the ideas of Adam Smith.
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY. And even if we did, too many would reject the common good for the individual greed as a red herring for freedom.
Money is fungible. To call one pile TARP and another pile Stimulus is the message of a fool. Fools gladly line up.
#114
With respect to the Japanese, you cannot on one hand argue that they did not spend money and look where it got them and on the other hand say they did spend money but it had no effect. Which is it? Right now, the Japanese debt is 170% of GDP and you are still claiming that government spending is good?!
At the end of the day, government spending is taking money from people (or worse, borrowing it) to give it back to other people at pennies on the dollar. It has never shown itself to have any appreciable effect in the short term on a recession and it has horrid effects in the long term.
If you think the stimulus bill is so effective show me proof of substantive economic improvement specifically and only attributable to the spending in the porkulus bill. We have 20%+ unemployment right now (post-porkulus). Are you seriously suggesting it would be any different without the porkulus bill?! Again, I have some beach front Arizona property for you on the cheap.
Thomas–are you seriously suggesting you know the answer one way or the other?
I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of. Clarence S. Darrow (1857-1938) American lawyer
To be conscience that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) British politician and author.
There are those of us who really believe Rush is the jackass. He’s said many times that his show is to Entertain. Not to Inform. He’s always right — in HIS mind. Good ol’ Rush makes up whatever facts make him seem happy. It’s pure coincidence when they happen to be the truth !
#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.