Limbaugh Reiterates Desire for Economy to Tank
Back during 2004, 2005, and 2006 it was pretty clearly the case that substantive setbacks for the United States in Iraq brought political benefits for Democratic Party candidates. And it was also the case that increasing numbers of administration critics were becoming convinced during that period that the administration’s policies were doomed to fail. During this time it became commonplace for conservatives to claim that progressives were actively hoping for substantive setbacks in Iraq. That was pretty scummy of them. So I hesitate to turn around and make a parallel claim about today’s conservatives and the economy. But Rush Limbaugh keeps on doing it:
“I want everything he’s doing to fail . . . I want everything he’s doing to fail.”
I suppose I don’t have high expectations for crank radio hosts, but it’s really remarkable how conservative elected officials have repeatedly decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Rush, hail his genius, defend his indefensible remarks, etc.
99 Responses to “Limbaugh Reiterates Desire for Economy to Tank”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
It’s become increasingly obvious that the American right wing hates America, and hates everything America stands for. They talk about supporting the troops, but screw soldiers over at every opportunity. They talk about right to life but support the death penalty. They talk about responsibility and accountability, but not when it applies to them.
The truth is that all the right wing really cares about is power. And they’d be just as happy to see America burn, as long as they get theirs.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Has anyone told him that the fed can’t fix things like it normally does? Or that this is not a regular recession? I just don’t get it.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Rush is the recruiter.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
So Limbaugh is a “crank radio host” because you disagree with him, or because conservatives agree with him?
How many thousands of people in politics and in the press have said the same thing: the stimulus is a bad idea and they don’t like Obama, but because RUSH says it, he’s a crank and his remarks are indefensible?
Clearly, here I write, defending him, so they are, in fact, defensible.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Loyal: Rush isn’t just saying the stimulus will fail to induce economic recovery. He’s saying he wants this failure to occur.
In 2002 I thought the Iraq war would fail to produce a stable flourishing democracy in which human rights are respected. However, I prayed that I would be wrong. I wanted for Iraq to experience a stable governance with respect for human rights and rule of law.
Any issue, any time, I would rather eat crow than witness a failure to alleviate suffering. It’s the Wellstone principle: politics is about improving peoples’ lives. I advocate the policies I believe stand the greatest chance of accomplishing this goal, and I celebrate when any policy proves to be successful.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Oh, LR, learn to read. It’s defensible to think Obama’s plan is a bad idea—that is, to believe it’s going to fail. It’s not defensible to hope it fails, which would mean hoping that the economy continues to deteriorate and ruins more people’s lives.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
@ Skeptic: Like I always say, nobody, but nobody hates America and Americans like Republicans hate America and Americans.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Its not that Rush THINKS it will fail, its that he WANTS it to fail.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
See, here’s the thing: Rethuglicans think it’s okay to hope for Obama to fail and for the country to suffer because they’re convinced Democrats did that very thing to Bush for eight years.
Payback for imagined outrages is the cornerstone of the wingnut mindset.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Well, he wants his fantasies to be true. Sort of like that little Austrian when it became clear they were losing the war. There’s not much future for him in a post-Republican world.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Apparently the GOP’s whole philosophy of governance now boils down to H.L. Mencken’s famous quotation: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
The depressing thing is, I’ve seen no evidence that Mencken was wrong.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “it’s really remarkable how conservative elected officials have repeatedly decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Rush, hail his genius, defend his indefensible remarks, etc.”
—————-
I suppose this is a liberal pundit’s idea of a harsh denunciation and a hard-nosed confrontation.
Sigh.
We’re such pussies, aren’t we?
February 14th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Ohhhh, ok. So now I know where those mindless Republicans get their “Democrat Party” from. Rush. Of course!
February 14th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
(J.D. wins the thread)
February 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
–Dwight D. Eisenhower
February 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Poor, poor Rush.
It reminds me of “The Great Disappointment” in the 19th century. There’s a level of cognitive dissonance that sets in when one’s religion has manifestly failed that is difficult for people to deal with.
What he’s really saying is that he can’t bear the stimulus to succeed because it means that his philosophy, his creed, and essence his God will turn out to be a lie. Everything he has dedicated his life to, everything that justified the horrible things he said, that would turn out to be a lie. What would that make him?
Instead of Rush Limbaugh: noble defender of the truth, he’d have to accept that he is, in reality, Rush Limbaugh: big, fat idiot.
Yes, I should very much imagine that he does want the stimulus to fail– and for that, he deserves our pity.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Well, if my political program destroyed the goddamn country I guess all that’s left is to hope the opposition can’t resurrect it.
Who really gives a fuck what they think? Either we can pull out of this and no one is going to give conservatives power to do anything for a generation, or we can’t and then maybe they can bullshit their way back in. Loyal Opposition asshole can bark and bray till hell freezes over I don’t care if his opposition is loyal or not. We can fix this or we can’t and it doesn’t matter what their motivations are for their obstruction.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
The nice people at the country club also listen to Rush.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Please raise your hand if you were hoping for the surge to work. Liar.
Rush doesn’t want Obama to succeed because he doesn’t want to limit the opportunity for millions of Americans due to socialistic type policies. And neither do I.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
This was Limbaugh last week:
If they are going to bastardize the American system, if they are going to make this government large and powerful and intrusive, someday they’re going to lose it. But they’re going to lose it after having amassed all this power. We will control it, and we’re going to turn it right back against them. We will build a massive army of patriots to counter ACORN. We will defund ACORN. We’ll defund the labor unions, and we will fund our own people to go out and zap ACORN. And we will do everything we can to enhance anti-union employment. We will make sure that when companies lose money, that the people that get canned are union people. We’re going to use the power of government just like the left is using the power of government. We’re going to use the Justice Department.
We’re going to go after big unions with the Justice Department. We’re going to find all of the criminal activity. We are going to find all the lack of ethics. We are going to find every bit of corruption we can, and we’re gonna sic the attorney general and the justice department and the US attorneys on you people just as you have been doing to the people of the right and the Republican Party for 50 years. And then we’re going to find George Soros and other concentrations of left-wing power and wealth. And we’re going to focus our attention on him, so that the American people will finally learn just who the hell paid for the bastardization of the United States, just who the hell paid for the destruction of the American way of life.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
he doesn’t want to limit the opportunity for millions of Americans
It’s kind of funny, don’t you think, that the policies of the past several years have severely limited the opportunities of millions of Americans by bankrupting them and throwing them out of work.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
What policies are those Tyro?
February 14th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Judd, there is a youtube comment section needing your attention somewhere. That’s more your speed, lil guy.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for answering the question, big guy.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Please raise your hand if you were hoping for the surge to work. Liar.”
In other words, you really think that half the country was actively hoping for more American troops to die and the country they were in to dissolve further into chaos and civil war so the party they support could possibly become more popular. No. NO. Conservatives think that way, and then assume everyone else does too. It is a truly evil, amoral mindset that I assure you quite well is not shared by the vast majority of liberals.
“Rush doesn’t want Obama to succeed because he doesn’t want to limit the opportunity for millions of Americans due to socialistic type policies. And neither do I.”
You’re full of shit, and you know it. Rush doesn’t want Obama to succeed because Democrats are currently in power, and future elections will be based on Obama and the Democrats’ record while in power. Therefore if he does succeed, Republicans are likely doomed to be a regional minority party. In other words, you and he are actively hoping the economy does not get better and that millions of people lose their jobs and homes, because if it turned out that Democrats were actually good at governing and their economic policies work then *your side wouldn’t win*. That’s it. It’s a horrible, horrible thing to say. But at least you’re honest about the true lack of any morals left in that shell of a party.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
The Surge did work — its purpose was to eliminate any serious chance that U.S. policies in Iraq would change to reflect the 2006 Congressional elections and the “Iraq Study Group” report.
It worked spectacularly — what else was there to hope for?
Other than that, sure, I ‘hoped’ that Iraq would unsh*t the bed, but ‘hoping’ for things like this is like ‘hoping’ that George W. Bush would one day adopt the views of Ralph Nader, or ‘hoping’ that your neighbor who thinks he can build a car which can drive to the moon can actually do it.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
What policies are those Tyro?
Proof is in the pudding, Judd. If the ideology Rush was shilling for as it succeeded was so great, then we wouldn’t be in the disaster we are now where people’s opportunity has been severely limited by dint of not having a job. Cripes, you’re pretty thick. Rush wants Americans to suffer so his party can come back into power, not realizing that the reason his party is out of power is because his party caused Americans to suffer.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I’m sorry, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Proof is in the pudding doesn’t make any sense. Just a pet peeve. Continue.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
This was Limbaugh last week:
The dude’s lost his shit, that’s all there is to it. However, I suspect he’s merely reflecting what a lot of right wingers are feeling on the inside. They want to “zap” the liberals and “go after” them. In fact, given what went on in the justice department after Bush, that’s exactly what happened. But now all they have to go on is to plot their revenge fantasies. I have no doubt these sounds just like the voices going through Judd’s head– paranoid visions of enemies everywhere. Strangely, though, none of those supposed enemies ever advocated the use of torture. I wonder why Rush and his lemmings aren’t hoping to get back at that crowd.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“Rush wants Americans to suffer so his party can come back into power, not realizing that the reason his party is out of power is because his party caused Americans to suffer.”
Of course he realizes this. Don’t be dumb. He is simply not concerned with the suffering of other people. He says what he does because he gets paid $80 mil per year to do so. That millions of people actually believe what he says and does not believe simply shows that there is, in fact, a fool born every minute.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I understand the situation, Tyro, I’m just asking what specific policy of Bush’s put us here? Just like, what specific policy did Clinton enact that gave us a growing economy in the late 90’s or what policy was it of his that then put us in a recession in 2000? “Proof is in the pudding is not a policy.”
February 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I think the defense would look something like this:
Fiscal “conservatives” think that this stimulus bill is not going to work. That is, they do not think that increases in government spending lead to economic recovery. Moreover, many such conservatives think this is quite obvious. They suspect that Obama is using the recession as a gargantuan fig leaf to cover an immense power grab that progressives had in imind anyway. (Again, take a look at all the things that are part of the stimulus bill that are simply parts of the broader progressive wish list. Progressives sai dhtey were essential when times were good. and wouldn’t you know it, they are the same exact things we need now that the economy sucks. Kind of like the GOP and tax cuts.)
Many conservatives think that the economy is bound to take an upturn regardless of what we do now, and that this bill is merely positioning Obama to take credit for that cyclical reality, and to use that momentum to pass even greater spending increases and socialize other elements of the economy.
That is, when some conservatives say they want Obama’s plan to fail, they COULD mean something other than wanting the economy to continue tanking. Particularly if they don’t see much of a connection betwen this bill and any eventual economic recovery.
Is this what Rush means? Probably not. But it could be. And that would make a certain amount of sense. Or at least be coherent.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
That millions of people actually believe what he says and does not believe
I highly doubt he does not believe it. Even if in some of his early work he was just saying stuff “to get a rise out of people,” most people, after repeating something over and over again, start to believe what they’re saying. Rush has brainwashed himself as much as his audience.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I did and do want the surge to work. I hope the Iraqis develop all the institutions of a free society, settle their ethnic and sectarian differences, establish equal rights for all including women, and set a free, humane and democratic example for the rest of the region. I really really do.
I’ve become far more realistic since the war started about the ability of American policy to bring about those ends. But even when I thought we were trying to do something we couldn’t do, I didn’t want Iraqis and Americans to die in order to prove myself right. That’s grotesque. I would, of course, prefer to reevaluate my own beliefs than see more needless death.
But if you listen to what Rush Limbaugh says in the clip above; it’s the opposite of the sentiment I just expressed. He wants the stimulus to fail, he wants the crisis to continue, and why? Because if Obama creates jobs, then Rush would have been wrong. If Obama succeeds, Rush would have to reevaluate his beliefs and think through things again. And rather than do that, he’d prefer to see Americans suffer and starve and die. It’s an absolutely grotesque sentiment. And it’s disloyal.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“I’m just asking what specific policy of Bush’s put us here?”
You fucking simpleton, everything is black and white with you isn’t it? One policy can cause a recession or a lack of one. Right. Read a damn book.
And you already know the answer, anyway. Lowering capital gains and corporate taxes and the top bracket rate is bad for the economy because it creates massive deficits, as happened under Reagan and Bush. A policy of as little regulation as possible is bad for the economy because it allows shit like credit default swaps to occur and all of a sudden we have a multi-trillion dollar shadow banking system that’s based on a house of cards.
If you want the bill most responsible, it’s Gramm’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was pushed through at midnight just before Christmas with nobody having any idea what was in it, and then regretfully not vetoed by Clinton. Bush was not involved. This was more of a general Republican failure because it was entirely for the purpose of making Gramm and those close to him richer at the cost of a lot of other people.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Thanks Adam, you just made my point.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Well, by 2006 the writing was on the wall with the subprime market and Bush was approached about it and he didn’t do anything because he “doesn’t want to limit the opportunity for millions of Americans due to socialistic type policies”.
The writing was actually on the wall in 2004 or so. I remember Tom Tommorow had a t-shirt there with Mr. Bubbles on it saying “I’m the real estate bubble and when I pop, you are screwed”.
I’ll be damned if I’ll explain the sub-prime mortgage crisis to some dipshit dittohead bleating about socialism though.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
You should come up with something intelligent rather than just saying that Rush sucks. Did you just hope that no one would listen to the Rush snippet? There was much more to Rush’s statement than just that he hoped Obama’s plan would fail. In reality, it WILL fail. It violates nearly every economic principle.
Name once when such a thing has ever worked in all of recorded human history?
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com
February 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Fannie and Freddie are huge contributors to the Republican party, we should shut them down.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
If we go back far enough, I’m sure we can blame this all on some cell that spontaneously divided. But that’s not really the point under discussion.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
As much as I’ll blame Clinton for Rubin and repealing Glass-Steagall and Democrats for worshiping Randian Greenspan, the bill into which the CFMA was inserted was just a few days after the Republican Supreme Court handed the election to George W. Bush (because they felt really bad that he as a candidate might be inconvenienced by a Florida recount), and the CFMA was inserted into the budget bill, so if Clinton had vetoed it there would have been no funding for federal operation.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“In reality, it WILL fail. It violates nearly every economic principle.”
a) You don’t know that.
b) Understand the distinction between ought and is.
c) Piss off.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Exactly! Just like ‘em damn stupid scientiss won’t admit that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
If ‘ere’s anybody what counts as a true scholar of economic principle, it’s Rush Limbaugh and the whole tribe of loudmouth right wing small businessmen, who know everything on the planet because no matter what happens, they can always tell you about this one feller they knew which did A, B, or C and it evermore proved to ‘em that X, Y, or Z.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
It violates nearly every economic principle.
Actually, the principles that got us unto this situation are the ones we’re rejecting, with good reason. We’ve placed ourselves in a situation where a significant source of the electorate has spent 8 years loudly screaming in favor of torture and mapcap deregulation with supply side economic policies that caused a massive implosion. I don’t now what to do with that– we have in our midst people both irrational and immoral who now have the gall to get hot and bothered about Obama’s economic policies when in fact these screamers like Judd have no credibility whatsoever. hen you acquire beliefs and ideas that aren’t the domain of the drunken pack of rabid beasts within the Republican party, you can offer something of interest.
For now, as far as I am concerned, every Republican critic of these policies is simply a dead-ender who doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about. These are the people who were too cowardly and too stupid to speak out against Cheney, Bush, and DeLay. Why should we listen to these jokers now?
February 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
The Republicans controlled the US Congress from 1994 to 2007. They also controlled the White House from 2001 to 2009 and the Supreme Court as well.
During that time, we ran up $6.3 TRILLION in federal debt, lost several thousand men in an unnecessary war, crippled tens of thousands more for life (which will cost another $1 Trillion) and allowed the Financial Industry to bring the economy to the point of collapse by failing to properly regulate it. The Stock Market Indices ,in real terms, are well below where they were when Bush took office 8 years ago.
Who does Judd think is responsible for this disaster?
Anything Clinton approved in 1999 could have been undone by Bush and the Republican Congresses.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Judd:
Basic Bush Policy Failures: 1. Tax policies that changed a $trillion dollar budget surplus into a $6 trillion dollar budget deficit with $1 trillion added in fiscal ‘08 alone. 2. Foreign policy where we have spent $1 trillion on a tragic and useless war in Iraq, 3. Deregulation and lax oversight of the financial sector (banks, investors re: Madoff). 4. The massive growth of “Big Government” under bush that largest growth in government since FDR/The New Deal.
Those are good for starters. If you need more info on each item I suggest googling would be useful. This link is a good start:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/
February 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
See Tyro, to me, you have no credibility when you say things like “Bush’s policies created the recession.” And when I asked what policy that was, you ducked. The strawman of being in favor of torture and madcap deregulation is exactly that, a strawman.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Rush Limbaugh is a racist asshole.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
It would be pretty weird if a guy was president for 8 years, and his policies didn’t have an outsize influence on the course of the economy during the ninth year. At the same time, of course, whenever you’re discussing a system with as many inputs as the American economy, you’ll be able to apportion blame across a number of different actors.
If you’re looking for specific Bush policies, I’ve got a couple:
-Regressive tax cuts
-Massive deficit spending
-Defense of the Hedge Fund loophole
-Appointment of charlatans and political hacks to key regulatory positions
-Stalling and half-measures once the crisis became apparent
February 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Wasn’t it Vice President Richard Cheney that stated that (and I paraphrase) “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”. And the BushCheney administration went on to test once more the economic value of Reaganomics. And it appears to some that the results are in. Some might call it a looser. Deficits matter only as the occasional need for an additional cudgel to beat the Democrats arises. Now the party of massive unfunded tax cuts and resultant massive deficits is unhappy and now, has become the party again of small government, less spending and no deficits. Suddenly, but not unexpectedly, its time for a resurgence of conservative principles. Time to dust off our David Stockman biographies isn’t it.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I recently spoke with two of my Republican neighbors, and I was genuinely astonished at how passionately they want Obama to fail. All they care about is retaking Congress in the 2010 elections. They must know that many people are really suffering during these difficult times. Their hostility towards Obama was so intense, it’s hard to understand where it’s coming from. Unfortunately, it occurs to me that a source of the hostitlity may be Obama’s race: for a black (biracial) president to “succeed” may be something that quite a few Americans simply will not abide.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I flamed a Rush apologist on another site, then stopped for a minute and thought:
Isn’t it crazy that we sensible Democrats, who live in the real world, allow ourselves to get all foamy-at-the-mouth when provoked by trolls like Judd (who might be Al in disguise)?
I mean, we won the fucking election!! By a lot!!! Just ’cause the likes of the WaPos and Broders and networks can’t get out of the false-equivalency habit, that doesn’t mean we should take what they say at face value.
As has been pointed out elsewhere by many others, ever since the primary campaign got serious and right through the general, whenever Obama and his folks made a misstep, it either turned out to be the right step or he recovered from it straight away.
Relax.
[aside to MattY: how about adding "Obama" to your spell checker so the red squiggles don't show up whenever its typed.]
February 14th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
All they care about is retaking Congress in the 2010 elections.
Then this just proves that they’re bad at math. The landscape isn’t there for a Republican recapture of Congress.
Unfortunately, it occurs to me that a source of the hostitlity may be Obama’s race: for a black (biracial) president to “succeed” may be something that quite a few Americans simply will not abide.
No, it’s not his race. They hate you just as much, regardless of what race you are. They hate Obama because he had the audacity to be a Democrat with power. Republicans are big on the “right to rule.” For them, a Democrat becoming president is the equivalent of staging a coup, depriving the presidency of its rightful owners.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Rush is just saying things straight – his belief system is not an empirical one but an ideological one. Ideologies don’t fail, reality fails ideologies.
The reason the right’s attitude lines up so much with their caricature of the left on this is because they were projecting their approach to knowledge and proof then as well. They do not believe in the scientific method. They believe that the world itself is an act of will, that faith and believing things makes them come true.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I didn’t know Rush was into crank, in addition to his destructive Oxycontin addiction.
Hey right-wing assholes, how does it feel to have a full-blown masssive (heh) drug addict as your standard bearer?
And he also travels to the Dominican Republic to secure the services of whores.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Until he comes out and specifically denies it, I’ll have to assume that he goes down there to secure the services of child whores, which DR is unfortunately known for.
After all, in the words of the great Peggy Noonan, it would be irresponsible NOT to speculate.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“efgoldman Says:
Apparently the GOP’s whole philosophy of governance now boils down to H.L. Mencken’s famous quotation: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
The depressing thing is, I’ve seen no evidence that Mencken was wrong.”
I beg to differ. Mark Penn, Steve Schmidt, and the list goes on.
2008 did change something.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
You know I’d head the “Rush wants Obama to fail” line and just kind of figured some fellow liberals were taking him out of context and then I listened and holy shit!! The guy is basically asking for a Second Great Depression. And if it doesn’t happen he’ll move to Singapore, everyone’s favorite bastion of limited government and rule of law.
The only theory I can come up with to explain this is that bankers realize everyone is mad at them, so they’re paying Rush Limbaugh, OctoMom, Blagojevich, and every other asshole they can find to be as distracting as possible. Don’t let it work–Limbaugh may want a depression, but the banks may actually bring us one.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Consumatopia: In all fairness, he said he’d “find property in New Zealand and put [his] money in Singapore.” He wouldn’t live there, he’d live in New Zealand. Which could be plausibly be interpreted to mean that he does place a certain amount of value on the non-economic freedoms that New Zealand has and Singapore lacks. (Or it could also mean he doesn’t want to deal with all the brown people who live in Singapore. Or he wants to live there to see the Hobbits. Who can say?)
February 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Isn’t Rush one of the people who called Alec Baldwin a traitor when Baldwin said he’d move to Canada if Bush won again? Wouldn’t that make Rush a traitor too?
Kewl. What do I win?
February 15th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Singapore? He’s nuts. Singapore’s entire economy is managed tightly by the government. That’s Rush’s idea of a successful country where there is no government meddling with the economy?
Lets send him there for good.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:44 am
That’s Rush’s idea of a successful country where there is no government meddling with the economy?
No, that’s Rush’s idea of a country where maybe he won’t be hassled about drugs or how he treats the local boys.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Kewl. What do I win?
Win enough threads, you get a wardrobe.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:24 am
thomas fisher: Rush is probably getting his bearings from the Index of Economic Freedom (which Yglesias has talked about before) or Economic Freedom of the World, since Singapore and New Zealand both score rather well on those. Their metrics for considering economic factors do not seem to directly care about the fact that a huge chunk of the Singapore economy is controlled by government-owned corporations.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:38 am
How did this cause the credit crisis/real estate bust/banking crisis?
Since when does the president control monetary policy?
How do you reconcile this with the reality that Bush signed into law SarBox, which was considered such tough regulation that Wall Street whined that IPOs would flee to London? If anything, Bush was the regulatory bad cop, compared to Clinton.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:37 am
It aggravated stagnant real-wage growth for the majority of the population. This fostered a lifestyle dependent on credit because American real wages continued to stagnate, while spending grew(and was encouraged– I distinctly remember being told it was nothing less than our patriotic duty).
February 15th, 2009 at 5:24 am
I think I’m starting to see how the right wing troll logic works:
Good stuff happens while the dems are in power, it isn’t that they did anything to cause it, just happened.
Bad stuff happens while Reps are in power, it isn’t that they did anything to cause it, just happened.
Good stuff happens while reps are in power, they’re gods who make the world run!
Bad stuff happens while dems are in power, totally their fault.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Hmmm, since Rush has broken the seal on wishing others harm, I hope Rush becomes seriously, terminally ill–and that everything his doctors do fails. I mean, painful, fear-based hallucination, Lee Atwater stuff, only without the hint of a Faustian deathbed conversion.
Bonus points if its from syphilis or some other ailment caused by his iniquitous appetites. I may be a dick, but it’d be nice to see Rush get into a scrape that his lawyers can’t get him out of.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Rush undoubtedly has private money managers who have moved him into safe assets, and who will probably score some deals on distressed assets as the Depression deepens. He can ride it out in style.
The rabble who listen to him, however, are going to bear the brunt of things.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Re: It aggravated stagnant real-wage growth for the majority of the population.
It isnlt just that Bush put through tax cuts, it’s that his tax cuts were specifically targeted to investment income. If you subisidize something you get more of it, which sounds like it should be a good thing in the case of investment– but it wasn’t because there were too few profitable investment opportunities in the economy. So too much investment money looking for returns bid up the one sector of the economy where opportunities did exist– real estate. Hence the real estate bubble.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Jesus, quit whining. Of course Rush is a self-promoting, hateful boor, but there’s no good to be had from complaining about the disloyalty of his dissent when we libs spent the last 8 years dealing with charges of disloyalty. Even though the situations are not parallel (although how sure are you that no prominent liberals crossed the line that Rush crosses here?), free speech is free speech and dissent is dissent. Disagree with Rush, call him a jerk, etc., but don’t question his patriotism. That way madness lies.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
How sure are you that no prominent liberals crossed the line that Rush crosses here?
Name them.
See the difference?
February 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Greenspan let the cat out of the bag when he confessed that he hadn’t imagined that people would do what people did to create the current meltdown. People did the irrational. With their own money. The whole myth of “rational actors” evaporated along with the 16 or so trillion bucks. All the Republican addicts who snark “Hey, take Econ 101″ are now holding nothing. The meltdown is to Economics what plate tectonics was to Geology. So, of course, Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. Because if nobody knows what to do, Republicans have Plan B: authoritarianism.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I see that Republican supporters Judd and Fred are ducking the points I raised in post 45 — so I’ll reiterate the points:
————
“The Republicans controlled the US Congress from 1994 to 2007. They also controlled the White House from 2001 to 2009 and the Supreme Court as well.
During that time, we ran up $6.3 TRILLION in federal debt, lost several thousand men in an unnecessary war, crippled tens of thousands more for life (which will cost another $1 Trillion) and allowed the Financial Industry to bring the economy to the point of collapse by failing to properly regulate it. The Stock Market Indices ,in real terms, are well below where they were when Bush took office 8 years ago.
Who does Judd think is responsible for this disaster?
Anything Clinton approved in 1999 could have been undone by Bush and the Republican Congresses.”
———
Pace the Republicans framing , it isn’t just Republican President George W Bush who bears responsibility for the last 8 disasterous years — it is the entire Republican Party. Because the Republican-controlled Congresses aided, supported and abetted Bush. They installed their own guy at Fannie Mae. They reappointed Alan Greenspan because his dumbshit ideology matched their own.
The Republican Party must be destroyed. The biggest fuckup the Democrats and Obama are making is not kicking the living shit out of the Republicans and making sure every damm voter in this country knows that the looming Depression is the Republicans fault.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I really don’t have anything to say about Rush, other than obviously the more this stuff is exposed to the general public without the GOP distancing itself, the more damage it will do to a GOP brand which is already in intensive care.
One of the things that Rush depended on, in terms of being anything other than a sideshow embarrassment, was that there were never any transcripts or recordings of his shows that were widely available. So he could say the most unhinged, outrageous things, but they would be lost into the ether. Nowadays, people quickly record, digitize, and release the relevant clips on the internet for all to hear, and it just makes Rush seem more and more ridiculous because you can point to something he actually said.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:26 am
“Is this what Rush means? Probably not. But it could be. And that would make a certain amount of sense. Or at least be coherent.”
Rush is trying to make liberals mad. It’s pathetic, but that’s his shtick, it’s all he has. So he says something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, one that will irritate liberals, and then another he can fall back on to explain himself when they get outraged.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Rush is trying to make liberals mad. It’s pathetic, but that’s his shtick, it’s all he has. So he says something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, one that will irritate liberals, and then another he can fall back on to explain himself when they get outraged.
Nonsense. I’m not angry with Rush. I think he’s being honest. Rush’s shtick is to come up as close to the edge as he can, and still cover his gigantic ass.
Prior to Timothy McVeigh, Rush and his other douchebag comrades were all for armed resistance, spouting apocalyptic fantasies, ranting about guns and struggle. The difference between Rush and G. Gordon Liddy was that Rush left himself some coverage. Then Tim McVeigh blows up an entire building with children in it… Rush backs away. But screw him, all his comments are on the record.
If its hateful, if its racist, if its hypocritical, Rush is in on it. Whether its calling a twelve year old girl a dog, or finding some way to mock a disabled person, Rush always brings a negative class to his hatefulness.
So let’s be honest. Rush and his class are about nothing more than the hate. He really does want America to fail under Obama, because Obama’s not his tribe. Rush and his buds would love to see America burn. All they care about is power.
I wouldn’t suggest giving Rush a pass, he is exactly what he is. He and his cronies hate America, they hate everything about America, and if they can’t be in charge, they’ll burn it all down. He’s honest.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I’m not sure if the stimulus will help that much in the current economic environment. Economies go through cycles and recession is part of the cycle. I read a good article on the history of cycles at, I think,
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com
February 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Rush’s shtick is to come up as close to the edge as he can, and still cover his gigantic ass.”
That’s what I was trying to say, put much more directly.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“Others already answered this question.”
Not plausibly.
“As I would put it, Bush’s fiscal policies created a surplus of capital looking for investment/lending opportunities, and a scarcity of fundamentally solid such opportunities, and the result was an asset bubble.”
That explains the asset bubbles in Spanish and British real estate too? These were global phenomena. Rabid partisanship makes you sound stupid. Think this through a little next time.
“Sarbanes-Oxley was about preventing Enron-type accounting scandals, and did not address the substantive financial issues that led to the current crisis.”
Regulation always addresses the last crisis, not the next crisis. That Bush signed Sarbox into law still puts the lie to your claim that weak regulation was a Bush policy; on the contrary, he was a tougher regulator than his predecessor.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Still trying to dodge my indictment of the Republicans in posts 45 and 77, eh Fred?
Trying putting your fingers in both ears, close your eyes and go “MEMEMEMEME–I’m Not Listening –MEMEMEME” real loud. That might help.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well then Rick, I’m sorry. But I’m tired of Rush sitting there and trying to figure out all the ways he can shout ‘n*gg*r!’, and run cover for the wannabe McVeighs.
It’s time to sit down and acknowledge who and what these people are. I’m tired of borderline right wing psychotics rambling around calling other people traitors and stoking up hysteria, inciting and running cover for guys who walk into Church’s children pageants and start shooting things up. I’m tired of their fantasies of executing and castrating liberals, or having a special ’swat team’ go in and murder half of congress and the supreme court to assure right wing supremacy.
I’m tired of ignorant cocksuckers like Fred who figures that civil conversation includes throwing snide little insults like ‘leftard’ around, like he’s being ‘oh so clever.’ Yeah, clever as a dog that shits on a rug.
Y’know what, at some point, we got to say: Fudge-munchers, you wanna open up those doors, you might not like what comes through at you. Civililty works both ways, and if you won’t offer it, you’re not entitled to receive it.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Another point about Bush’s tax cuts, just to put them in perspective — Remember when his father lost against Bill Clinton for backtracking on his pledge not to raise taxes? After Bush 43 cut the top marginal tax rate from 39.6 to 35, the top tax rate was still higher than it was after Bush 41 raised it. Not exactly a radical tax cut, people, and the idea that this was the proximate cause of the global credit bubble is nonsense. Try the recycling of East Asian savings into already debt-laden Western consumer countries.
“Still trying to dodge my indictment of the Republicans in posts 45 and 77, eh Fred?”
I didn’t even see those, sorry. I was corresponding with DTM. If you like, feel free to summarize your point in a new comment and perhaps I’ll respond to it.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Of course Rush is a self-promoting, hateful boor, but there’s no good to be had from complaining about the disloyalty of his dissent when we libs spent the last 8 years dealing with charges of disloyalty. Even though the situations are not parallel (although how sure are you that no prominent liberals crossed the line that Rush crosses here?), free speech is free speech and dissent is dissent. Disagree with Rush, call him a jerk, etc., but don’t question his patriotism. That way madness lies.
There has to be a cost for 8 years of baselessly accusing the other side of treason. Of course, Rush Limbaugh is free to say whatever he wants to say. For the past 8 years, much of the content of his free speech has been fabricating in great detail a narrative of how liberals are traitors who want their country to fail in various military endeavors.
Then, upon the inauguration of a new president, Limbaugh immediately shifts the content of his speech to calling for the economic ruin of the United States. And in your view, no one should have anything to say about that massive hypocrisy? You ignore these things and you’ll get a replay of the Bush presidency 8 years down the road, and that way madness lies.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
on the contrary, he was a tougher regulator than his predecessor.
Nonsense on its face. The asset bubble in real estate and the derivative shenannigans didn’t happen in a flash. They took years to develop. Bush years. Had Bush wanted to intercede, it would have been easy for him to have done so.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
You know, Southpaw, in the last 8 years I didn’t hear one elected official question anyone’s patriotism for not supporting the war. I heard alot of defensive grumbling about it though. But, just last week, Obama and Reid both praised the patriotism of the stimulus bills supporters. If that is not questioning the patriotism of it’s opponents, I don’t know what is.
And Skeptic, you want civil conversation from us and then claim that we are just trying to figure out a way to say n****r, and that we fantazise about blowing up half of congress. That is hilarious! I mean, really funny stuff.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Judd, all I can say is that you got a pretty selective memory.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to call you out as a liar or a fool. Take your pick, I don’t care much either way.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Maybe Judd and OBL live in the same cave…
February 15th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
# McKingford Says:
February 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Maybe Judd and OBL live in the same cave…
I think the explanation is much simpler: Judd and Al live in the same trollbrain
February 16th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Rush is being a true revolutionary .. wasn’t it Lenin who said “The worse things are, the better”?
So the Bolsheviks greeted the outbreak of Workd War I and the attendant slaughter with delight, as leading to a “revolutionary situation”.
Do the Russians still award a “Lenin Peace Prize”? Rush is a prime candidate.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I particularly liked the part about him (Rush) leaving the country. Let’s start a collection to buy him some property in New Zealand before the folks in New Zealand catch on.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Heyyy! GREAT POST!!
I have a question…
is there really FREE ringtones @
http://www.bluestickers.info/ringtones.php
Provided by http://www.RingtoneCarrier.com
is this true??
Thanks
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:49 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Great site. Keep doing.
I am from Finland and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Find the best deals on vacation packages, discount airfare and cheap flights.”
Regards
Daphne.