Rush Limbaugh: The Ugly Un-American

---

JW February 9, 2009 10:34 am (Pacific time)

Henry you posted: " HOW did you contact them ?" ...in reference to my statement that the Founding Fathers were for small and limited government. Obviously I did not channel these enlighted people, I simply read many of their writings, including the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to make my above totally and historically accurate statement. Possibly you have some source(s) where they said we needed massive government control over the people similar to the royalty of England during their time? As far as Keynes (his theory is not confusing to trained scholars) economic policies progressing currently, well yes we can see remnants of many of his policies in England and Europe. They have all been experiencing double digit unemployment for many years now, long before our economic downturn which clearly exposes the weakness of Keynes and people who advocate massive government spending (read more control over citizens) and enlarging entitlement programs to be run by the government. Can you name a successful government run program? What I see happening is that a very poor vetting process has put some ethically-challenged people in postions of simply receiving too much power. Recall when VP Biden said "paying taxes was patriotic?" Well does he apply that to cabinet members? Henry I would like to point out that late last week the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), that many congressmen have labeled the "gold standard for advice", is against the Bailout in its current form, and they assert that by doing nothing would be better, for in their opinion we would grow out of this recession in approx. 18 months. Well, we won't know now, but I guarantee that very soon they will be clamoring for another similar bailout because this current one is about bailing out those who do not create stimulus, but do just the opposite. To update you posters: Socialism is a monetary policy and ideologies like communism and fascism are political policies. "Dissent" is part of the democratic process, those who support fascist policies attempt to squash dissent. If they cannot succeed squashing dissent by some mandated order, then they eliminate the dissenters. China, Cuba, North Korea currently do this, and historically, Stalin killed tens of millions who continued to dissent. So as long as we have civil debate we're okay, but pay attention to what some are doing who want debate discontinued...

---

Henry Ruark February 9, 2009 9:46 am (Pacific time)

JW et al: Checking old files for discard, found notes from famous educator at I.U. Simply stated, his top-of-line lecture summarized as: "Just as you can lead sheep to water but never make them drink unless they are thirsty, you can lead learners to cogitation but never make them think until you have made them realize their need." Okay, friend ? Might help to motivate still further solid dialog here for all concerned.

---

Henry Ruark February 9, 2009 9:14 am (Pacific time)

JW: You wrote: "Time will tell, and as I said in ten to fifteen years it will be clear who had the better strategy. Our economy is so huge, with entitlement programs continuing to grow faster than tax revenue, that to even consider Keynes model, or something analagous, is folly. Can you name someplace where it is currently successful?" You right on money re ten-yr. perspective; mine might referse yours. BUT both simply personal interpretation, of equal worth: Very little ! - of course dependent on depth, detail, insights and real values of our sources and our intentions, conscious or otherwise. Size of entitlements and all other components adds some difficulties but rationality defies impossibility to handle simply because of size -else we all already sunk too deep ever to surface...do you really believe THAT ?? Impossibility to isolate Keynes-in-course now since process still proceeding, willy-nilly, consciously or not, worldwide, which is key part of his Theory not understood by many. Can only rely on ready history of past 50 years in numerous areas including Reagan-Bush I and II depredations from which we suffer here and Thatcher likewise in Britain from which they suffer-there, too --with unavoidable repercussions worldwide per K-Theory as cited. Details demand more space than possible here, but do exist,which again is reason for ID to Editor so we can get on with this thread "on our own", respecting space-needs here for others.

---

Henry Ruark February 8, 2009 3:55 pm (Pacific time)

JW: You wrote: "I believe the Founders agree with that assessment." HOW did you contact them ? If NOT accomplished, that is YOUR interpretation ONLY --surely now very questionable via dmonstration in your Comments. Re Krugman as consultant, making profit ? Are you anti-profit by individual selling topgrade services ? He surely produces or corporate and agency clients would NEVER pay --I know, from similar experience. He demonstrates integrity every day in column, and still fashions product worth their profit-sharing. Re entitlement growth faster than tax revenue, where did allathosetaxslashes profiting only the rich come from ? We restore rightful-sharepay to those unfairly benefitting now and we will begin to set scale right vs huge inequality now built up. Do you deny that inequality, sir " --at your peril to facts on record and extremely well-documented. Re Reagan "success", that was THEN with exceeding distortion of public opinion due to some previous-decade experience.His record now revealed and well understood justifies every point I have ever made vs his work, since he was elected, when I first wrote-thus. Re disagreement of economists, depends on who scratches whom for how much and under what oversight what view you will get, as you well know. That's why K's column, entirely open and public, sets both pattern and standards. Can you cite any other economist in same full-public view, vulnerable to all, on every word written, with exemplary record of being right on the money --no pun ! Yr last stuff is laughable, as you attempt to tie debacle built oveer 30 years to --of all things !--partial Dem.presence offsetting complete Congressional control for years by GOP --obscuring historic situation clear to any observer of years since Reagan (except for Clinton who was go-along to get-along.) SO distortion/perversion is still your tune, sir, set off by simple misstatement where it can help build that smoke-curtain you so badly need. Again, that is clearly shill-work in my book, checking pages full of painful experience with some others. IF that's "unfair", why not ID to Editor and you can set me straight by direct contact ? I'm ready, willing and perhaps even a bit welcoming and able. When do we start ? (At the great relief of many others here at S-N, I'm sure !)

---

JW February 8, 2009 8:52 am (Pacific time)

Henry all I can do is point out the many former Nobel Economic winners who disagree with those economists you support (see below posts). Time will tell, and as I said in ten to fifteen years it will be clear who had the better strategy. Our economy is so huge, with entitlement programs continuing to grow faster than tax revenue, that to even consider Keynes model, or something analagous, is folly. Can you name someplace where it is currently successful? I spent many years dealing with business consultants, and appreciated their professional advice. I have yet to meet one who felt that we were not being taxed enough, or that government needs to nationalize and control more of our economy. I believe the Founders agree with that assessment. Though many in academia I have talked to over the years feel that bigger government control would be okay, and Krugman is one of those guys. Are you familiar with Krugman's personal profits he made as a consultant? Regarding Reagan, no doubt you are no fan, but he's been out of office for over 20 years. He had a 49 state mandate, and how many millions of jobs were developed on his watch? He had a democrat-controlled congress to deal with. He entered office with a much higher unemployment rate, interest rate and inflation rate than we have currently. For the last 8 years many have been talking down the economy, even when unemployment was at 5% and the stock market (DOW) was near 14,000. Look what happened to all those above factors beginning in January 2007. Who took charged of congress then? For the last 70 years or so, how many of those years have the democrats been controlling the purse strings? Time will tell, but the majority of Americans as per Rasmussen (the most accurate pollster) do not like this upcoming Bailout Bill, and there will be political repercussions, as there usually is when the masses get emotional. Money gets people very emotional.

---

Dorsett Bennett February 7, 2009 5:34 pm (Pacific time)

unknown wrote on February 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm "You don't have to pray that Omama fails, he will fail. He lied to the American people, hires tax dodgers, criminals, wants to pass a bail out with 30% of pork to pay off the people who got him elected, passed a bill for health care which is mostly for the illegals, he is trowing Socialism down our throat, he apologizes to the Muslim people on Arabic TV, he is going to fail because he shows the world that we are a weak Country." Think about typing your comments on a word processer and then cut and paste. That way you maynot appear mentally challanged due to your multiple mispellings, etc. :-)

---

ChrisJones February 7, 2009 3:17 pm (Pacific time)

Actually I stand partially corrected "for your eyes" re: Economic Fascism and the Bailout Economy Posted by Lew Rockwell at 12:10 PM Writes Charles Burris: Gary North's LRC article is an excellent concise summary of what I have been telling my Economics students about what has going on in the world economy for the past 100 years. They have been viewing several key films over the course of this time. They include Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve (available at Mises.org); Liberty and Economics: The Ludwig von Mises Legacy (available at the same location); and Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (available at PBS.org). The first film indicts the Fed and fractional reserve banking for providing the mechanism which created this monetary meltdown. The second film details the role of Mises and the Austrian School in predicting this. The third film is a series of three episodes. The first, "The Battle of Ideas," contrasts the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. Keynes the socialist, dominated academic economic thought for the better part of the 20th Century. His 1936 book, as Gary North pointed out in his article, rationalized the essential fascist economies built upon central economic planning, deficit financing, and monetary manipulation -- the welfare-warfare state. Hayek, the Austrian colleague of Mises, was Keynes' great rival. In 1944, he wrote The Road To Serfdom, indicting socialists of all stripes and brands for the nonsense of central economic planning, which Hayek stated would lead to totalitarianism. He was ridiculed, berated, and ignored by the establishment. Keynesians and other advocates of central economic planning were in the saddle; in the UK, in the USA, in India and much of the emerging Third World. Then in the 1970s, when stagflation (high unemployment and rising prices) occured, the Keynesian economic model was dead and discredited. Hayek received the Nobel Prize in 1974. Many observers now turned to Hayek's writtings as a guide. This included Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and the people around them advising them. The 1980s saw the battle of ideas emerge in open combat thoughout the world. The Ludwig von Mises Institute was created to lead the charge. By the 1990s, much of the developing world had rejected central economic planning and were turning toward market economies. But none of these nation-states had rejected central banking and the fractional reserve component at its core. So when the monetary meltdown of 2008 occured, all the mechanisms were still in place which allowed this to happen. The final film my students will watch soon is The Ascent of Money (available at PBS.org). This will bring the monetary crisis up to date.

---

ChrisJones February 7, 2009 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

One thing about reagan is that under a free market the government cannot start a "war on drugs" against certain substances they don't "approve of" supposedly but everybody knows the war on drugs is to artificially inflate the price of such substances, which certain secret entities of this government import and profit off of, as well as the feeding of the most advanced and largest prison-industrial complex in the world. The same applies against bush and his "war on terror" at the very least but those are just single examples of dozens perhaps hundreds or thousands of specific reasons why these [administrations] are not to be taken as legitimate examples of a free market.

---

ChrisJones February 7, 2009 2:46 pm (Pacific time)

To all: THIS is nothing but a strawman argument against a pure free market under no administration in any of our lifetimes have we had anything of the sort. This argument here that I qutoe is bunk "We are suffering now from the cumulative impact of that erroneous understanding, best stated by Reagan's declaration that "government IS the problem !" -then by horrendous example with largest debt ever accumulated, totalling more than every other President prior to his regime, and THEN further deepened by Bush I and Bush II neocon cabal consequences."

---

Henry Ruark February 7, 2009 10:53 am (Pacific time)

JW: You wrote:"Though I do find that those people who know what it's like to run a business rather than a classroom of impressionable and clueless students, and of course the ideologues of all stripes-- the business people know that tax cuts would have the quickest way of stimulating the economy, along with tax cuts for those who actually pay taxes." That denies, defies, attempts to defeat precisely what the Keynesianism applications over the decades has proven to be in error whenever and wherever applied. Tax cuts cannot and never have supplied correction to economic collapse, while govt. expenditures have repeatedly done so. We are suffering now from the cumulative impact of that erroneous understanding, best stated by Reagan's declaration that "government IS the problem !" -then by horrendous example with largest debt ever accumulated, totalling more than every other President prior to his regime, and THEN further deepened by Bush I and Bush II neocon cabal consequences. That's firm historic record, not disappeared by empty-word declarations from anyone or any other economic "school". You further confuse the issue by equating economic consultation with academic teaching. The truthful reality is that it is from academia that corporate and all other business interests draw the research and the deep-immersion background for their forward steps, guided by those teaching there, who almost entirely come from the very depths of business itself after decades of practical, realistic experience, to lead, guide, shape, and continue what topnotch business schools promulgate, then teach. Do you wish to deny that fact of life, sir ? If so, seek out the top-staff names on your own selection of schools, and ask them for their basic reality experience in operating business at all levels and every variety. It has been my pleasure over years to interview a fair number of these leaders, with at least some understandings thus stuck in head !!--helping me to understand what I do (or did !) in my own enterprises.

---

Henry Ruark February 7, 2009 10:13 am (Pacific time)

JW et al: Must share with you-all the Keynesian view stated thus: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard Keynes, British economist. Surely fits the pattern for solid test over current credit and fiscal/financial crisis worldwide, right ? Last 30 years of U.S. history cannot be denied, which is why we are where we now find ourselves...

---

Henry Ruark February 7, 2009 10:07 am (Pacific time)

JW et al: Your continuing patience with ol' hardhead, namely me, really appreciated, sir. Happens, however, circumstance long ago helped me learn much of what you continue to point up re business interests, with a far different prospectus on their motivations and mechanisms to achieve it. Re Keynes, he and his solid commonsense economics is now history, not open to change to fit your or any other opinion to the contrary. Which view --Keynesianism or "supply-side" will prevail is open to circumstance as well as application, but I still recall that Laffer refused to answer simple question in Chicago: "Could you have had that napkin upside-down, sir ? handed him by me in group for client association. He stuffed it in pocket and left the stage, to end the QandA period. Good to know your grad-level econ/bcgrnd: May have question or two for you, someday...

---

JW February 6, 2009 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

Henry there are many economists out there and all have their endless views on the myriad aspects of micro and macro economics. I have had some graduate background in this area and I still get confused in what they are saying. So I imagine those who don't have that background also get confused. Heck I know a couple Econ. Phd's who don't get much of what some of these "theorists" are talking about. Though I do find that those people who know what it's like to run a business rather than a classroom of impressionable and clueless students, and of course the ideologues of all stripes-- the business people know that tax cuts would have the quickest way of stimulating the economy, along with tax cuts for those who actually pay taxes. The latter group is becoming smaller in size as each year goes by. This boneheaded "spending" bill not a stimulus bill that is about to be voted on will fail. So the lefty economists will come out and say we need more spending, and Krugman advocates that. We shall see, and in ten or so years we will look back and realize that people like Krugman and those who follow the failed policies of Keynes were fortunately "ignored" when they proposed a new stimulus policy. We are going to get some change, but what makes America great, our people and not the politicans/government, will allow us to adapt and recover. It just will take us a bit longer than it should have.

---

Henry Ruark February 6, 2009 4:17 pm (Pacific time)

JW: You cite Gary Becker, economist, opposed to Krugman and many others re Obama policy decisions. That's the same Becker notorious for considering children as "durable consumer goods", and also for still believing in "monetarism", at U.Chicago, while most others long ago rejected it. Point: He's far, far behind the current credit debacle, with little reason to clearly understand what, how, why it has happened --much less what it means. SO per commonsense re anyone knowing economics and its purveyors, one can find someone for every point of view. That means one must first survey the solid record, then consider the specific approach, and still then evaluate with own mind...which leaves those with limited background and faulty information at tremendous disadvantage...perhaps reason Bush I andII got away with economic murder for so long, after start by actor Reagan playing his heartfelt role as a canny President while ok'ing Iran/Contra, continued wild revolution-backing in S. America, and assorted other highly unpalatable actions now firmly revealed in recent history. You might wish to check on these points, one by one, if you can find time from unsupportable statements here.

---

Henry Clay Ruark February 6, 2009 1:24 pm (Pacific time)

JW: You cite Becker:"“This is because unemployment rates among health care workers are quite low, and most of the unemployed who had worked in construction, finance, or manufacturing are unlikely to qualify as health care workers without considerable additional training. This same conclusion applies to spending on expanding broadband, to make the energy used greener, to encourage new technologies and more research, and to improve teaching.” That is quite correct, does nothing but point up complete and wise pattern in Obama plan. Retraining is definitely demanded; reconstruction of whole field of education must also follow, for 21st Century levels now demanded. BUT to cite this as if it were negating both O's approach and Krugman et al is to distort real significance --perhaps only open if one has enough background, previous reading, special study, et al. Do NOT mean to "put you down:, actually appreciate your quote since it reflects precisely the point I continue to make: IF you do not really understand complex situation, better not comment so publicly here. To which I MUST add if you are afraid to sign your stuff, better not state it in public. OF COURSE citizens should read, study AND COMMENT --but then they should ALSO show WHO they really ARE, to guarantee their special interests are noted. First pattern for ALL areas of communications research is: "WHO says WHAT to WHOM in WHAT channel, for WHAT AFFECT." Read "affect" to clearly illuminate purpose of those seeking to protect their own personal economic interests as well as perverted purposes of what was until Reagan an honest "conservative" group, and you have the short-summary history of what's happened in the past THIRTY YEARS !! Proof is easy: Simply check with the unvarnished, open, NOT hidden behind "anon" of your neighbor now afflicted by realities like never before in American life... Which is why O has such a huge mandate, deserves full, honest protection for fair-American shot to carry out what people now KNOW they need, MUST HAVE and WILL GET by whatever means is demanded to kill off (forgive !) the malign distortions and perversions peddled so strongly, for so long, by those seeking to preserve their own dollar deals. Which is ALSO WHY Internet will shortly be forced into regulation to prevent and provide protection from this distortion/perversion operated at costs paid by billionaires and by misled/volunteers, to which we have proof nearly every day right here on S-N. See current Op Ed for more on this rapidly-developing further abuse of open-channel ethical communication by some determined to devalue all else as deeply as they can do. Which is WHY they continue to "hide behind tree" of "anon" on short-name, with never any open statement of WHO they are or WHY they concoct what they DO. ID is easy, even confidential to editor if in any way really required; to deny it is to defeat any credibility and accept the onus of masked man-at-door with possible explosive package liable to "go BANG !" right in your face if you let him in.... Every reader-item in S-N carries ID of writer as by-line or note at end; that's to give you accountability AND proper responsibility, at professional level. WHY accept any less from masked man at your door here ?

---

Henry Ruark February 6, 2009 1:01 pm (Pacific time)

JW: Thank you for your thoughtful continued participation, sir. Per usual, we have definite disagreement. Your cited economist known for negative views over the years both on these issues and on past record, with his own based on so-called "classical" economic values, reflecting Hayek et al from Chicago School, now badly disavowed by world events including desperate plight of developing nations using their applied methods --first one of which by Friedman in S.America was for bloody dictator, setting the pattern since. Evaluation by citizen depends, as you point out,on scale and depth of information involved, but also on life experience, background in politics, own "success" or "failure" --and, deeply, on own economic status including investment and most esp. income-level. It is too much, social science as well as economics has now clearly shown, to expect ANY to depart from damage done to critical facilities by those shaping experiences. Which is why specialists write books --and journalists report as widely and deeply as possible for all. The, too, there is the always deep impact of commonsense realities, such as we now are experiencing re "supply-side", Reagan/BushI/II/Cheney neocon cabal, consequences of 30 years knowing nonprofessional distortion/perversion of U.S. policies...short of book, that should be enough for you. Have you read or even skimmed any of the ten separate new recognized-valuable refs. I have supplied here ? Reich, Klein, Korten, Lekachman, to name only the first-five ? Until and unless you do so, you are simply UNinformed, or if willfully avoiding that updating process you are MISinformed by malign intent. Mine own view(s) changed over process with those named - so will yours, if your mind still free to operate without undue influence from emotional attachment to the past. There is simply no possible question of failure in depth and desperate consequence to the Reagan-Bush/neocon/Laffer laughabilities on which you rely. History already shows that to be true, despite the anquished attempts to further distort/pervert of some you continue to name as if still credible to those who know from life experience other than yours what is real and what is illusion further limited by limited life experience and specialized study. Then, too, there are basic human values and mores put into deep question by reliance on "other side" than the progressive philosophy to which we react here --which is the driving engine for neocon nonentity now demonstrated in depth, denigrating the entire world economy for all to see --and feel, too.

---

Vic February 6, 2009 10:25 am (Pacific time)

If the article is about Rush Limbaugh, why is the pic of a pit bull taking a crap? Thats what it is, right?

Editor: Yes, I couldn't find anything else to go with this one; I actually thought it was a bull terrier, shows what I know~

---

JW February 6, 2009 9:45 am (Pacific time)

I don't have the time to write a book on this topic but I do read books and articles on it as time allows. I believe all citizens should read as many "contrasting opinions" on this matter as is possible for them, then draw their own conclusions. Of course we are living in the time where in about 10 to 15 years we will see who was wrong or right in their strategy. The recent Nobel Laureate, Paul Krugman, has recently expounded the Keynsian model in a New York Times article, one might also consider what another Nobel Prize winning economist, Gary Becker, has written of the democrats spending plan. It makes a lot of common sense when it comes to addressing unemployment and job creation: “Some of this infrastructure spending may be very worthwhile …but however merited, it is difficult to believe that they would provide much of a stimulus to the economy. Expansion of the health sector, for example, will add jobs to this sector, but it will do this mainly by drawing people into the health care sector who are presently employed in jobs outside this sector,” Becker wrote. “This is because unemployment rates among health care workers are quite low, and most of the unemployed who had worked in construction, finance, or manufacturing are unlikely to qualify as health care workers without considerable additional training. This same conclusion applies to spending on expanding broadband, to make the energy used greener, to encourage new technologies and more research, and to improve teaching.”

---

Henry Ruark February 6, 2009 8:24 am (Pacific time)

JW, Murphy: Your points all understood, but also all based on past-understandings, as with Hayek, Friedman. Both Chicago Boys, doctrines failed wherever used, far too detailed history for review here. Friedman recanted his major points prior to death; his Chicago institute under heavy fire from most economists at Chicago. "Miracle of markets" exploded over/over/over via Reagan era examples, as you should know. SO, guys, go get historified, then seek out full-story in past 30 years --and explain why we in such horrendous mess now given clear-shot, open-Treasury since Ronnie playing role of President when he was ONLY great actor with magnetic voice/personality. Those two characteristics may trap millions of UNinformed, but not useful vs 43 million without health care, more millions unable to seek now-demanded college, still more hurting for shelter and food money, many millions of jobs-gone despite decades of "supply-side" and "monetarism" policies...and totally unneeded attack on nation to despoil it of its natural resources costing us more billions than double the Okama progam ever will. Good luck, and keep notes; you will need to write at least one book, together perhaps since one mind cannot offset allathosefacts, even with big help from neocon hq.

---

Vic February 6, 2009 8:06 am (Pacific time)

Rush reminds me of a bantam rooster I had back in the 80s. A noisy, worthless little thing that crowed constantly for no apparent reason. He met his maker in July of 82 when, hung over from the night before, with head throbbing,and unable to take his senseless , constant crowing anymore, I fitted an aluminum hunting arrow to my compound bow and shot him out of a tree. I was actually just trying to startle it, didnt think Id hit him...The bloated maggot Limbaugh would be a much easier target.

---

annonomus February 6, 2009 1:35 am (Pacific time)

tobbacco dildo anyone?

---

S. Murphy February 5, 2009 3:00 pm (Pacific time)

Nobel laureate James Buchanan, argues that the great flaw in Keynesianism is that it ignores the obvious, self-interested incentives of government actors implementing fiscal policy and creates intellectual cover for what would otherwise be viewed as self-serving and irresponsible behavior by politicians. It is a social science, so anyone can postulate a theory without the rigorous examination one gets in the physical sciences. We not only have the populace voting themselves into the public till, we have politicians voting on their own pay raises and awarding contracts to the cronies who financed their campaign. A small amount of Keynesianism would be a good thing, but we would still be down to the same basic problem. You shouldn't trust anyone else with your credit card, much less a politician. A balanced budget amendment might have saved us a lot of heartache. Tax cuts are the safest stimulus policy, but we are going to get amateur hour, and we are going to possibly get the long recession/depression of the 1930's.

---

JW February 5, 2009 11:22 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark, respectfully, the Keynesian Doctrine in actual application is a failure in today's "modern" world. In my opinion no one can name anyplace where his economic policies enjoy any true success, unless say you compare and contrast with places like North Korea and Somalia. Possibly you or another reader/poster have a real world successful model you can share? Keynes noteworthy critics are scholars like Georg (no "e") Simmel, DH Robertson, Milton Friedman and FA Hayek to name just a very few. I am familiar with their critiques and agree with them as do probably a majority of modern free market economists in my opinion based on considerable literature review. I'm sure there will be critics of these scholars, and that is why healthy polite debate can be rewarding. To account for his obvious economic model's failure is to look at his policies as applied to a Keynesian economy, something that was done in England pre WWII and afterwards. It is simply a movement towards socialism, and Great Britain and European failed socialistic policies abound. They have chronic double digit unemployment, a slothful medical/dental system where people are pulling out there own teeth and die while waiting for simple procedures that we take for granted here. Canada has also joined this failed economic model in certain regards. America is the worlds economic engine and when we have a downturn it is felt worldwide. Our capitalistic free market system is dynamic and fluid which will allow us to recover as long as government minimizes it's intrusion. People should not confuse stimulus policies with pork appropriation political payback methods that needless to say are very attractive, but come with strings attached that will diminish our recovey in my opinion.

---

Anonymous February 5, 2009 9:46 am (Pacific time)

I am pleased to announce that RUSH LIMBAUGH will be the closing speaker at CPAC 2009! Rush Limbaugh has been attacked for decades and he just gets stronger. What many fail to realize is that the majority of Americans have conservative values, and that is what Rush expouses. To think that his supporters are regular radio listeners is not correct. It's the values and critical assessments he makes that people ID with. How many care about Mathews, Olberman or leftist magazines/publications and other individuals/pubs of that ilk? Not many. Sure they have a following but nothing compared to conservative individuals and organizations. Rationalize all you want, but you are a diminishing minority, getting smaller as each day goes by. Who really has the thin skin and who usually makes the personal attacks?

Tim King: He gets fatter and fatter, that's for sure. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the country wants Obama and that means that more than half of us are not "conservative" but then there is nothing really conservative about Limbaugh or Bush; it is all a ruse, an act. Flamboyant and extravagant are the words that begin to describe your heroes. Killing in the name of Christianity and all of that, for most who believe the words of this idiot, there may be Hell to pay at the end of this long road. Jesus wanted us to take care of the poor and the weak; the same groups Limbaugh attacks. He is simply mean and his is a fear monger. Don't forget to get sheered this spring, and don't miss your nodding lessons, have a nice day.

---

tom February 5, 2009 9:23 am (Pacific time)

Tim King has this one nailed. Limbaugh is a blubbering windbag!

---

Henry Ruark February 5, 2009 8:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: For serious readers who really want to understand why Keynes Doctrine still rules world economics, one of best books on his work is: The Age of Keynes; Rob't Lekachman;l966; Random House; Library of Congress 66-014 "See also" Wikipedia, easily accessed via Internet; then check Laffer and "supply-side"; and "Classic Economic Theory".

---

Henry Ruark February 5, 2009 7:10 am (Pacific time)

JW; You wrote: "We have a documented record that that format has worked in the past, while the kenysian model is just a temp. fix that fails to develop the kind of permanent jobs the economy needs in the private sector." Lord Keynes, originator of the Keynesian Doctrine at the heart of "demand-side" economics from World War i through FDR-era and WarII, needs no defense from us at this level. You would not understand a demand if it up and aggregated against you, but that only shows your lack of any clarity here. Your attack is totally in error since the historic record clearly shows the disastrous failures across world economy early-on, then further disintegrating every system worldwide via that "supply-side" laughable Laffer Curve, upside/down fantasy so recognized by those charged to put it into operations. Did you ever meet either Laffer or Keynes ? Ever read any of their (simplified for the public) works ? Ever discuss Keynesian Doctrine with economists interviewed? If NOT, how are you qualified to make such sweeping assertions ? Any links, books, referencs, sources, except your b/button feelings ? Here you reveal true purpose to pander points for impure political purposes, which your commonsense must inform you is far from true patriotism as demanded for national commonweal now. One might get the impression that even if O walked clear across the Potomac, so long as skin-tone did not change you would still attack at every possible point. Prove otherwise, if you can figure out how to do so now you are so firmly on record this way. Several solid sources for good books on Keynes and policies, if you ID to Editor...but you sedulously avoid any true dialog for malign attack.

---

conservative February 4, 2009 10:16 pm (Pacific time)

Obama is not black. He is half black, black father, white mother. Remember? Get off the racial bull, getting really tired of it.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 10:33 pm (Pacific time)

If it's a man's catnip to toke a blunt and stroke his assault rifle while he makes smart ass comments on youtube videos, I don't see anything wrong with that as long as they ain't hurting anyone.

---

unknown February 4, 2009 10:24 pm (Pacific time)

For years we had to listen to people who put down Bush. Now Barrak Hussain Obama is President and here we go. Don't even think about saying anything negative about the Messiah, the Savior and who knows what else they think he is. I got news for you, You don't have to pray that Omama fails, he will fail. He lied to the American people, hires tax dodgers, criminals, wants to pass a bail out with 30% of pork to pay off the people who got him elected, passed a bill for health care which is mostly for the illegals, he is trowing Socialism down our throat, he apologizes to the Muslim people on Arabic TV, he is going to fail because he shows the world that we are a weak Country.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 9:09 pm (Pacific time)

The FALSE left right paradigm is collapsing and good riddance to it. I'm tired of them holding little "goodies" over our head on each side of the false political spectrum. I want the whole pie of freedom and I think the majority feels the same way. Why not? You only live once right?

---

Dorsett Bennett February 4, 2009 8:36 pm (Pacific time)

Everyone needs to realize that Rush Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer, rather than a legitimate political commentator. He is an individual of extreme contradictions, proposing long incarcerations for drug abusers and even the death penalty; all the while sending out his housekeeper to illegally buy painkillers. I have lived in conservative cities for more than 30 years and have known many of Rush’s Ditto Heads. The vast majority of them are not bad people, but rather politically unsophisticated and usually suffer from too concrete of a thinking style. I am not accusing them of suffering from low intelligence or poor education [although some of them do, just as some liberals do], but their analytical skills are often times poor; as demonstrated by comments made here and elsewhere. I find Keith Olbermann endlessly entertaining, while Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are usually irritating. All of them are both correct and wrong in things they say. Rush Limbaugh is simply the most offensive, while Bill O'Reilly runs a distant second. This comment has been written by a Libertarian Paleoconservative. If you don't know what those terms mean, then go to Wikipedia.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

Yeah it doesn't make much sense to "remodel the house as it's getting foreclosed" so to speak. This country has "limited funds" (I don't wanna say bankrupt but many say it is for all intents and purposes) Shouldn't a major facet of the debate be about whether the us is going to continue to fund the worthless empire overseas or have some kind of a social safety net and 1st world infrastructure??.....Or we can just borrow and spend until we have a currency collapse. So far they seem like they're more inclined in dc towards the third selection.

---

Anonymous February 4, 2009 2:51 pm (Pacific time)

How many Democrats hoped that Bush would fail? I truly hope that Obama is a successful President, but I don't agree with everything he says or does, and Rush Limbaugh (or anyone else) is permitted to raise questions, just as Bush's opponents did. Dissent is an important part of the American discourse. Bush didn't like it much; it seems you don't, either.

---

JW February 4, 2009 2:51 pm (Pacific time)

Obama doesn’t have enough republican votes, so he "may" now disavow the House vote and their bill, saying he never liked it in the first place. This is not a true stimulus bill in its current form, more like the most massive spending bill in the history of our country, aka, political payback that backfired. They won't pass it if they don't have enough republicans with them so they can call it a bipartisan bill. In my opinion watch for legislation that will be more stimulative, which means more tax cuts. We have a documented record that that format has worked in the past, while the kenysian model is just a temp. fix that fails to develop the kind of permanent jobs the economy needs in the private sector. Government jobs only work while we have a healthy private capitalist economy that pays for those government jobs. Remember those large infrastructure jobs have to go through a lot of planning and legal hoops before they begin. Then there will be lawsuits to stop some of them. So these jobs, except for the small make-work kind (like filling potholes,etc.), will be off in the future. Stimulating private business with tax cuts and reducing taxes on those who actually pay taxes (they see it immediately in their checks) will get things moving. Like giving our economy some major fiber. Of course if we have a terrorist attack, my guess is that the economy will actually rebound faster. Hopefully as Americans we can come together and put some legislation that is truely stimulative and not a redistribution of our wealth, for that will just leave us in a continued downward spiral.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

The Soros foundation is heavily involved in eastern europe:namely the US proxy puppet state of Georgia. He was a major player in the sneak attack perpetrated against russia during the olympics 8/8 of last year. That and many other questionable issues aside he supports a sick patient's rights to access an inexpensive, effective, safe medicine which happens to be a plant that the government doesn't grace with it's mighty approval. He also makes people say things like this "The California referendum that approved ``medical marijuana'' in 1996 was paid for by George Soros and his many dope-pushing front groups" LOL LOL I love it...haha "dope pushing front groups" Even the ONION couldn't come up with such outlandishly funny material. I bet the GOP wonders why it is now an impotent lame duck neo-con infested putrid party.

---

Jim Kane February 4, 2009 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King THANK YOU for this article. You are a voice of sanity and reason!

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 1:50 pm (Pacific time)

Amazing rush- taking the majority view of your supposed party. Way to really take a bold stance against the establishment you rebel. You represent virtually NOTHING that true conservatives stand for. It wouldn't surprise me if someday soon your own listeners who you have convinced to lay down to tyranny finally realize the truth and come and "haze" you with torches and pitchforks in hand you phony rambling drugged out pompous lavish spoiled spineless windbag RUSH.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 1:38 pm (Pacific time)

Soros, globalist sponsor of moveon taught the bank of england an important lesson about fractional reserve banking and inflation black wednesday in '92...too bad the only real loser was the taxpayer as usual(private profits socialized losses) Watch em do the same thing with the US fiat federal reserve notes but they are set to make much more this time. Why do you think the federal reserves balance sheet and bank reserves are so high right now? I know his buddy jim rogers just moved into a short position on US dollar.

---

Anonymous February 4, 2009 1:32 pm (Pacific time)

Bush has signed democratic-party legislation the last two years he was in office. So look what happened to the economy when he did that! It takes 535 elected to congress and one president who signs the bills to enact what the other 535 put together. So now we have a complete democratic power base, so time will tell who leads, and who leads well. My position is the the "bloom is off the rose" for Obama and national and international hardball is in play. Regardless of his 3 point shooting ability he will have to put up. Can this person who literally has now experience outside of campaign rhetoric rise to the occasion? Time will tell. I hardly think Rush Limbaugh should be given so much power, nor should one look at moveon.org as some objective newsite. They have an agenda which is the one their backer Geoge Soros has. They take statements out of context and propagandize them. They, like Air America, have very little national influence and will soon fade away when some lawsuits that have been filed catch up to them.

---

S. Murphy February 4, 2009 1:17 pm (Pacific time)

I heard that Rush Limbaugh has around 20 million listeners. So if that's true he can influence "potentially" one out of fifteen voters, or around 6-7% of the max. total. The below poll pretty well establishes the fact that Limbaugh's potential influence would have a negligible influence on the overall data. I believe quite frankly that enough voters have seen this stimulus package (more each day by the looks of the poll) and reject it. Just do the math. Maybe the trend will be different next week also? Rasmussen: Support for stimulus drops to 37% (43% opposed, 50% say it will do more harm than good) Rasmussen Reports ^ | February 4, 2009 | Scott Rasmussen Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it. Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats. A stimulus plan that includes only tax cuts is now more popular than the economic recovery plan being considered in Congress. Forty-five percent (45%) favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed."

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 12:45 pm (Pacific time)

A day late and a dollar short don't you think rush?? Where have you been this past decade? I wouldn't be surprised if this was a calculated ruse to take the attention of the intellectually cowardly rednecks off of the current legislation (H.R. 45)and appointment of the rabid nutcase gun-grabbing eric holder that could result in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. That castrated judas goat rush wishes he was a tenth of the man Alex Jones is.

---

MarcosElMalo February 4, 2009 12:26 pm (Pacific time)

I *AM* ashamed that Rush Limbaugh carries any weight in the GOP. At the same time, I find it sadly funny that the author puts so much stock in MoveOn.org, an organization just as deceitful and manipulative as Mr. Limbaugh, but without any conceits of being entertaining.

Moveon.org is a credible organization. If they step out of line with less than factual information, they get nailed by the rest of the media. I know some of you think that peace is some kind of an agenda, but it's not. I know both war and peace and want to see only the latter in this world. Inexperienced non-military veterans like Limbaugh who root for war and oppression are nothing more than a sad embarrassment in this country. The 'left' as so many call open minded regular people, is actually the center of the road friend.

---

Matthew February 4, 2009 12:05 pm (Pacific time)

The only people who think Rush has any power is the liberal camp. I listen to Rush all the time and it's for entertainment value. Seems to me that you just need line up someone to blame. It's not treason to use free speech to make money. It's treason to unconstitutionally suppress anyone's voice through legislation which over the years I have heard people like yourself attempt to do. And Rush agrees, it's so stupid of you to think one man has the power you believe he has.

---

Tim_CA February 4, 2009 11:58 am (Pacific time)

First off Mr. king - thank you for your service. Now, If I understand your point...because Obama won, everyone else who disagrees with his pork-laden, agenda-driven stimulus package should abandon their ideals and fall in lock step with the Messiah. Let's set aside the hypocrisy of this position given that you're obviously from the same party that brought us "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - accusing the previous sitting President of all sorts of Tin-Foil-Hat grade nonsense. You source MoveOn.org, an extreme group of fringe liberals that brought us General "BetrayUs", yet you say That Mr. Limbaugh is "trying to sabatoge the very nation we call our own".

No Sir. That's what MoveOn, The DailyKos and goofballs like you are doing by mortgaging our children's future with such "stimulus" spending as STD Education, Condom Distribution, a new building for the Public Health Service, Child care on military bases, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $726 million for an after-school meal scheme, etc., etc. Every Liberal Wet Dream ever conceived has money thrown at it in this bill, and it now tops out at almost $890 Billion (that's Billion partner - with a "B"). How many "jobs" will be created by this spending? Exactly how will the pork above "stimulate" the economy? I'm Proud that Mr. Limbaugh and House Republicans are standing up to the wasteful nonsense that the Messiah is trying to sell - it reminds me that there are still a few policy-makers left with some common sense. You write "Nothing worse than a sore loser; unless it's a really mean, dried up has been sore loser". Wrong again....there's nothing worse than an empty-suit-junior-senator-cum-President bearing pork and his group of kool-aid drinking followers who want to piss money down a rathole when we can afford it least.

Grow up Already!

Signed - An Informed (kool-aid free) Independent

Tim King: Don't think that people reading this can't see between the lines. A person has to be cold toward humanity to sport your ideals I'm on the record as supporting kids eating lunch, you aren't? Bush has probably pushed this country's economy past the point of no return, but the fault does not fall on Obama's shoulders; only the responsibility. Bush was a perverse money spender whose family is friends with the Bin Laden's. Haliburton absorbed so many taxpayer dollars in the last 8 years that we'll never know the total. Again, you have to have a cold heart friend and little experience with real life; seeing people suffering, living in war, etc. You have much to learn and there are only so many years. Our job on this earth is to be human.

---

RichieRich February 4, 2009 11:54 am (Pacific time)

I notice you use Moveon.org as your reference. Geez, is there a more liberal site you can use as your reference? I rest my case. I'm still waiting to see if you have the grapes to even print this and my last post. Come on, print an opposing view...you can do it.

---

Anonymous February 4, 2009 11:52 am (Pacific time)

Editor do you have a link to those "200 economists from across the political spectrum [who] sent an urgent letter to Congress endorsing the stimulus plan." ? Thanks

Editor: Moveon.org is the source and they have the list of 200.

---

RichieRich February 4, 2009 11:36 am (Pacific time)

You're as far left as you claim Rush is right. Does your leg tingle as you write of Barack? What flavor is the Kool Aid you drink? To blame Rush for a flawed stimulus package is proof of your bias. Pork and pet projects are not stimulus. Barack wants this piece of crap passed quickly because he knows that the longer this turd hangs around, the smellier it's going to get.

---

ChrisJones February 4, 2009 10:51 am (Pacific time)

Limbaugh is what is known as a fat slob of a hippocrit JUDAS GOAT. His job for his masters is to neutralize any REAL conservative opposition to the NEW WORLD ORDER. You will never hear Rush speak out against the POLICE STATE, the FAULTY DRUG WAR, endless wars around the globe, or the savage destruction of the 2ND AMENDMENT. This disgusting phoney deceitful traitor makes me vomit. Shame on his fake RINO (repulican in name only) listeners for falling for such obvious placation.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.