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.”
5
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
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.
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 !!!
#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.
#134
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.
Hey, if you think drafting half the country into the military is the solution, just say so. Where do you suppose that 250% increase in spending went? Did it go to patching holes in the highways or repairing bridges? No. It went to the defense and war time related industries. So, are you suggesting that we increase Defense spending 250% (cause you know, it isn’t high enough)? Again, it took a global war to get us out of the depression not spending on repairing a few highways.
#140–Thomas==what in months of blogging here leads you to think I’m not totally pissed at the incompetency and profligate ways of our government?
Unlike YOU, and most of the Republitards posting here and taking their bribes in Congress, I do not have the hubris to translate my anger into so called knowledge based positions.
SILLY, do you understand what the word/concept of silly means, SILLY to think “the track record and consequences” of history tell us what should have been done then or what should be done now in similar but still different circumstance.
That AMBIGUITY is so uncomfortable for you and your ilk is I hope one of those attitudinal dividing lines between libs and cons, the thinking and the unthinking, the rational and the dopes voting against their own self interests. You are simpl mindedly conflating your emotions with the knowable facts of the world. The birth of LIEbetTARDism and all other emotionally based political systems, ideologies, = inability to deal with ambiguity.
Sad really, “to know something that isn’t true.” Even fits on a bumper sticker.
Yea, verily.
Like a beached whale, Rush definitely draws a crowd!
#142
I do not have the hubris to translate my anger into so called knowledge based positions.
No, your MO seems to be to throw up your arms can claim that if you don’t know, no one does and then proceed to lambaste anyone that suggests otherwise. There are some fundamentals here that are known but you don’t want to worry about those. The equivalent of your position on government spending would be to say, “Well, spending billions abstinence-only programs might be beneficial and there were experts that said just that so there is no reason to question it.” Ridiculous.
If the government spends money poorly, we are obligated as the people whose money they are spending to stand up and say something both in the ballot box and via our currently elected officials. Uncertainty (which is different than ambiguity) about a particular solution is fine and dandy when the amounts are small and it’s not our money. When the amounts are in the trillions and it is our money, the uncertainty better be close to zero that the solution will work *especially* when said solution has a track record of not working. So, yes, I have a serious problem with solutions that have dubious results when the amounts in question trillions of dollars. If you are OK with that, then I think that sending me all your money might help make your life better. I hear there are experts that have said just that but there is some ambiguity in the results.
Well Thomas==you are simply wrong.
You don’t characterize my repeated arguments to you and you repeatedly refuse to fairly consider the possible impact of not spending the stimulus dollar. You may be right, you may be wrong – no one knows.
“Your refusal to widen your perspective troubles me.”
Right is right jackasses!
#146
This “the stimulus might help, it might not” is simply fatalistic nonsense. “Blowing trillions at the roulette wheel might help, it might not”. You might as well endorse Yogi Berra for President. If you don’t know whether the stimulus spending made any significant difference find out for yourself. Do your own research. What is troubling is that you apparently are content to let people gamble with your money. Like I said, given that this is your attitude, send me all your money. It might help or it might not but that doesn’t matter does it?
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
Thus ends the two minute hate. So what’s the next one ordered by your masters in the White House- Glenn Beck?
That’s funny, a fat man with a highschool degree calling a harvard graduate an idiot.
“”I’m a newbie and your accomplishment is quite a lot an inspiration for me””