Obama: Quit Listening to Rush!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And definitely read the Steele piece Varg posted. It explains why I hope he fails, yet the country prospers.

It simply doesn’t work that way, Sloth…and that’s been proven.

When major portions of the economy fail, the Country as a whole (and in case of Wall Street and housing, the whole World), is dragged down with it.

There are no easy answers that can be boiled down to a few rants on a Political Forum.

Mufasa

Why would you keep portions alive artificially? Why would you prop up something that loses money? So we put our nation further and further into debt keeping some vegetable on life support? So our kids can bear a greater and greater burden so politicians can return favors to wealthy contributors who took risks knowing they were “too big to fail?”

Also, do you realize what you’re implying? That if I’m one of the “too big to fails,” you’re going to bail me out no matter how reckeless I am? Or, how often I’m reckless? That’s a message right there that needs to come to an end. Individuals, corporations, wall street, or our own government, they all need to quit looking to other people forced into bailing their butts out. Live and act within your means folks!

Especially, when the present generation can’t even come close to paying for it’s own “solutions.” I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Future generations will despise us for what we did to them. They’ll be paying for all of this, while trying to bear their own present cost of the leviathan we’re leaving them with.

[/quote]

Mainly because “portions of the ecomomy” represent people, with Lives, Sloth.

I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a boat, and somebody is barely keeping their head above water…or worse yet, sinking…it’s damn hard to say “You never should have gotten into the water in the first place”.

And before you guys jump in and say they are lazy and stupid; many of those sinking are (or were) hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

I know a few.

Mufasa

62

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Mainly because “portions of the ecomomy” represent people, with Lives, Sloth.[/quote]

Which is why I want the government to stop screwing with it.

[quote]
I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a boat, and somebody is barely keeping their head above water…or worse yet, sinking…it’s damn hard to say “You never should have gotten into the water in the first place”.[/quote]

Would you pull a gun on the third guy and command him to jump into rough seas to save the other? Or, would you let him hold your shoes while you voluntarily went to the rescue?

Also, we’re back to talking only about the present. “Things are supposed to be easy now! Central command must unleash it’s power upon the economy and let this burden pass us by!” There’s nothing moral about loading up debt and social programs on future generations. Enough is enough.

63

But this gets hashed out here plenty. Back to the matter at hand. Not only do I see an alternative, I believe his left wing redistributionist policies to be damaging. Therefore, the only rationale thing I can do is to hope he fails, yet the country doesn’t. Of course, congress will probably give him pretty much what he wants. So he has that going for him.

64

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…
Mainly because “portions of the ecomomy” represent people, with Lives, Sloth.

I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a boat, and somebody is barely keeping their head above water…or worse yet, sinking…it’s damn hard to say “You never should have gotten into the water in the first place”.

And before you guys jump in and say they are lazy and stupid; many of those sinking are (or were) hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

I know a few.

Mufasa

[/quote]

While many misinterpret the “Right-Wing Message” into “Let them drown in their stupidity!”, the major point of conflict for conservatives is the role of the federal government in helping those in need.

Conservatives say the federal government should do nothing. In effect, the government’s response should be “Swim harder”. Further, any action the federal government takes to try and help will only end up hurting everybody.

So for hard-working, tax-paying Americans that just got caught in the crossfire? Conservatives don’t think they should just drown. Conservatives think that anybody who wishes to help should help. Voluntarily.

You wanted an alternative “policy” the federal government could take that would best address the sluggish economy? Do nothing. Absolutely nothing. And while the government is doing nothing, citizens should volunteer to help those who are struggling to stay afloat. And not the faceless, anonymous “needy” either. Help someone you know.

Help Steve down the street who lost his job at the car factory by offering to let him mow your yard for $50 a week. Help your ex-coworker Jane by paying your babysitter a little more to watch her kids too while she finds another job. Volunteer at your local church to organize a food drive.

So you know a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault? Do the conservative thing and help them out however you see fit. Do that, and you’ll help them far more than the federal government ever could.

That’s the conservative answer. That, in my opinion, is the only right answer.

Or you can do what Obama, W., McCain, and most of Congress is trying to do and just throw money at rotten corps in a blind and stupid attempt to help those employed by those corps. It’s worked so damn well up to now, let’s try it some more. Right?

65

[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:

If socialism and big government are inferior to capitalism and limited government, isn’t it redundant to wish for their failure? I mean, if Obama doesn’t fail, shouldn’t that mean that he’s found the right policies?

[/quote]

No, that means he found enough sheep to support his policies. Implementation of said policies is not the marker by which “success” of these policies should be measured. Popularity of a thing has nothing to do with that thing’s intrinsic value or usefulness. Look at Paris Hilton.

They should be measured by the increased affluence and wealth of people and the growth rate of the economy. However, socialism has led to DECREASED economic growth rate in every country it was tried in as a replacement of capitalism. An exception could be made for war-torn countries where it would actually allow a stable form of gov’t.

66

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…
Mainly because “portions of the ecomomy” represent people, with Lives, Sloth.

I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a boat, and somebody is barely keeping their head above water…or worse yet, sinking…it’s damn hard to say “You never should have gotten into the water in the first place”.

And before you guys jump in and say they are lazy and stupid; many of those sinking are (or were) hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

I know a few.

Mufasa

While many misinterpret the “Right-Wing Message” into “Let them drown in their stupidity!”, the major point of conflict for conservatives is the role of the federal government in helping those in need.

Conservatives say the federal government should do nothing. In effect, the government’s response should be “Swim harder”. Further, any action the federal government takes to try and help will only end up hurting everybody.

So for hard-working, tax-paying Americans that just got caught in the crossfire? Conservatives don’t think they should just drown. Conservatives think that anybody who wishes to help should help. Voluntarily.

You wanted an alternative “policy” the federal government could take that would best address the sluggish economy? Do nothing. Absolutely nothing. And while the government is doing nothing, citizens should volunteer to help those who are struggling to stay afloat. And not the faceless, anonymous “needy” either. Help someone you know.

Help Steve down the street who lost his job at the car factory by offering to let him mow your yard for $50 a week. Help your ex-coworker Jane by paying your babysitter a little more to watch her kids too while she finds another job. Volunteer at your local church to organize a food drive.

So you know a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault? Do the conservative thing and help them out however you see fit. Do that, and you’ll help them far more than the federal government ever could.

That’s the conservative answer. That, in my opinion, is the only right answer.

Or you can do what Obama, W., McCain, and most of Congress is trying to do and just throw money at rotten corps in a blind and stupid attempt to help those employed by those corps. It’s worked so damn well up to now, let’s try it some more. Right?[/quote]

That’s not the only right answer. I agree with you in some respect–I think those that can help SHOULD HELP someone they know who’s hit hard times. Not the faceless needy, make it PERSONAL. Get out of your damn bubble. I am a poor broke-ass college person, but even I manage to find ways to help people who need it.

But, on the other hand, I do not think that the only proper gov’t response is “nothing”. Conservatives are not monolithic in their assent to this position. For example, unemployment benefits and other programs are not so odious to the conservative mindset. People who work hard and contribute should not drown. It is, I think, that they limit this aid to people who WILL work hard to get OFF the aid and back on their feet. It is also that they limit the benefits of the aid to encourage getting off of it.

Now in some respects I think it is acceptable that the gov’t do more for people–I am not universally opposed to welfare. Nor are many of the conservatives I come into contact with. However, they favor a SELECTIVE style of aid.

67

In just the last few days six large companies have announced 50,000 layoffs. This economy is shedding around half a million jobs a month, with no good news in sight. In fact this will likely continue through most of 2009 at least.

How many Steves and Janes are you willing or able to give a hand to? Guess what: it’s no longer “a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault”. The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew.

69

[quote]tme wrote:
The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew.

[/quote]

Was this the same group of economists that was telling us that there was no housing bubble? The usual go-to economists featured in the news don’t seem to be giving out very good advice.

70

I don’t listen to Rush anymore. To me he’s dated. I like to catch Andrew Wilkow from 12-3 on Sirius.

71

[quote]tme wrote:

In just the last few days six large companies have announced 50,000 layoffs. This economy is shedding around half a million jobs a month, with no good news in sight. In fact this will likely continue through most of 2009 at least.

How many Steves and Janes are you willing or able to give a hand to? Guess what: it’s no longer “a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault”. The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew. [/quote]

The problem is that this current bailout bill sucks donkey balls. It sucks waaaaaay worse than the original bill. It won’t fix anything in my opinion, and if it does end up adding jobs, the time course will be sadly lagging behind what needs to be happening much sooner. Infrastructure spending has a long lag time until effect.

Even if you are FOR a gov’t bailout, this AIN’T IT! and you should think very carefully about what and how the gov’t plans to SPEND YOUR MONEY. Just because you think the gov’t should fund a bailout DOES NOT EVER mean you can simply trust the shitheads in Congress to put together a meaningful and well-crafted plan. They’re bureaucrats who love power and money, and spending money. You need to keep a closer eye on what KIND of plan is being advocated and decide whether you support it on its merits or not. Don’t simply support a bailout plan because “something needs to be done”.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Was this the same group of economists that was telling us that there was no housing bubble? The usual go-to economists featured in the news don’t seem to be giving out very good advice. [/quote]

Quite true. They’re often terrible. News tends to pick more highly visible people for their expert opinions, and this does not always translate to true understanding of the subject. It simply means they’ve got good PR and are highly visible–think of it in terms of the one strength coach that had some sort of genetic freak that made his career, but hasn’t had success with any of his other ‘non-freak’ clients in 10 years.

72

[quote]tme wrote:
In just the last few days six large companies have announced 50,000 layoffs. This economy is shedding around half a million jobs a month, with no good news in sight. In fact this will likely continue through most of 2009 at least.

How many Steves and Janes are you willing or able to give a hand to? Guess what: it’s no longer “a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault”. The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew.

[/quote]

Well, you’re going to get your wish.

And I’m more likely to sprout a third arm than anybody seeing a tangible return on this money. We’re literally throwing it down the toilet hand over fist.

You can poo-poo my pie-in-the-sky love your neighbor “plan”, but at least the people that need a little boost would get it. They won’t under any massive gov’t “stimulus package”.

Since that’s the case, why, why, why are we spending this mountain of cash that we don’t have?

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:

Since that’s the case, why, why, why are we spending this mountain of cash that we don’t have?

[/quote]

Well, it’s because you won’t give enough money to NPR and PBS voluntarily- Michelle Malkin Archive - The Unz Review

75

Why would Dems want to fix the economy? What’s in that for them?

They don’t care about you or me or anyone else. All they want is power. That’s why most of these people go into politics anyway.

If a man has a small business and is making a lot of money, they can’t control him. All those taxes and regulations, destruction of the currency, were meant to do exactly what they are doing today.

The world we have is the one they crave.

76

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tme wrote:
…The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew.

But of course! Of course because we can look at history and see that whenever and wherever government gets heavily involved in the private sector, things get better! Right? Riiiiiiiiiight!

[/quote]

See the “Soviet Brittan” thread. The article there is a perfect example as to why this “stimulus” will not work.

This is not a stimulus, this is a government growth project. I see this as more of a power grab. A stimulus would increase the flow of money in the economy, this package dumps it into the abyss with no way of recovering the money save for raising taxes.

You all know that we’ll be paying for this stimulus by next year right? Those of us who are not on the hand out program that is.

77

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
tme wrote:
In just the last few days six large companies have announced 50,000 layoffs. This economy is shedding around half a million jobs a month, with no good news in sight. In fact this will likely continue through most of 2009 at least.

How many Steves and Janes are you willing or able to give a hand to? Guess what: it’s no longer “a few hard-working, tax-paying Americans who hit some hard times that weren’t their own fault”.

The large majority of economists are now recommending a massive government stimulus program, I wish they weren’t right but they probably are. I’d rather take my chances with their plan instead of the “cut taxes and love your neighbor” crew.

Well, you’re going to get your wish.

And I’m more likely to sprout a third arm than anybody seeing a tangible return on this money. We’re literally throwing it down the toilet hand over fist.

You can poo-poo my pie-in-the-sky love your neighbor “plan”, but at least the people that need a little boost would get it. They won’t under any massive gov’t “stimulus package”.

Since that’s the case, why, why, why are we spending this mountain of cash that we don’t have?[/quote]

Dependent people won’t bite the hand that feeds them.

78

Rush’s response to the Obamessiah
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012609/content/01125107.guest.html

Which segues nicely to Rush’s proposed bipartisan stimulus plan, which I must say, is utter genius
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012609/content/01125108.guest.html

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why would Dems want to fix the economy? What’s in that for them?

They don’t care about you or me or anyone else. All they want is power. That’s why most of these people go into politics anyway.

If a man has a small business and is making a lot of money, they can’t control him. All those taxes and regulations, destruction of the currency, were meant to do exactly what they are doing today.

The world we have is the one they crave.[/quote]

Wow, so SELFISH! Sounds like they’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand.

80

[quote]Kruiser wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why would Dems want to fix the economy? What’s in that for them?

They don’t care about you or me or anyone else. All they want is power. That’s why most of these people go into politics anyway.

If a man has a small business and is making a lot of money, they can’t control him. All those taxes and regulations, destruction of the currency, were meant to do exactly what they are doing today.

The world we have is the one they crave.

Wow, so SELFISH! Sounds like they’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand.

[/quote]

You can never read enough Ayn Rand. And Dems are NOT selfish. They are unselfish, in the sense that need other ‘selves’ (victims).

I suggest that you check your premises.