homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » If Rush limbaugh is so smart (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: If Rush limbaugh is so smart
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 02, 2009 11:38      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_________________ TheMoMan Here __ If Rush limbaugh is so smart, why didn't he run for President, come on, Rush put your money where your mouth is declare you are a candidate or shut up.

This guy is worse than a Monday Morning Quarter back. No experience just a draft dodging coward that got out of the selective service (draft) because he had a pimple on his sitter downer.

Nothing but a naysayer, damn either do something or get out of the way of the people that are doing something.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted March 02, 2009 18:02      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mo_Man

125 Million people voted in the last election.

Rush Limbaugh has 30-million listeners.

Let him lead the dummies into the desert. They won't find their way out.

Conservatism at this moment has proven to be a total, dismal failure.

The idea that if we allow the wealthy to pay no taxes and obey no laws and in turn the wealthy will take care of us all has proven to be, well, as stupid as it now sounds.

"The wealthy are good people, do as they say and everything will be unicorns, pots of gold from leprechauns and fairy tale princesses!"

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 02, 2009 18:33      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be so hard on Mr Limbaugh, he just wants to return America to the excellent economic management it's enjoyed for the last 8 years.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 04:57      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
___________________ Hi All __ Well I was hopping that I could draw out some of the conservatives, guess they have all run for cover. I my self feel that MOR (middle of the road) is the best, how ever this country does need Universal health care, government funded for all.

Canada, and most of Europe have some form of Social Medicine and they have better health numbers than here in the states.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
brainisfried
Geek-in-Training
Member # 3067

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 11:01      Profile for brainisfried     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rush has repeatedly said that he won't run for President because he doesn't want to take the pay cut. That, and he already has his dream job.

Anyone who thinks that Rush is a fan of W's economic policies has clearly not been listening to his show. Reagan's policies, yes, but we haven't had a real conservative President since then and McCain wasn't going to change that. I thought that W was spending like a drunken Democrat until Obama proved W to be a tightwad in comparison.

Go watch Rush's recent CPAC keynote address for some education:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qtvtBGWgBc

Posts: 39 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 11:19      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_______________ brainisfried __ The same could be said of FDR. Then WWII came along, and there was just cause for spending and war bonds.

I watched Michael Moore grow up and have dreamed about him and Rush locked in the same room, with one piece of cake. Would youth prevail or old age and treacery

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 11:25      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
Anyone who thinks that Rush is a fan of W's economic policies has clearly not been listening to his show. Reagan's policies, yes, but we haven't had a real conservative President since then

So, which part of Reagan's economic record do you think Limbaugh would admire the most?

The huge government deficits, leading to a tripling of federal government debt?
The huge trade deficits?
The Savings and Loans crisis? (it's deja-vu all over again)
Two recessions?
Or transforming the USA from the worlds biggest creditor nation to the worlds biggest debtor?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DoctorWho

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 12:48      Profile for DoctorWho     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This article pretty much sums up what I think about Rush Limbaugh's position right now.

--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia

Posts: 1694 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 15:35      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
Go watch Rush's recent CPAC keynote address for some education:

Oh, brain,

I think we'd prefer you to give us an education on the basics of Reagan conservatism.

Explain to us how trickle down economics works, will you?

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 16:05      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
[QUOTE]

So, which part of Reagan's economic record do you think Limbaugh would admire the most?

The huge government deficits, leading to a tripling of federal government debt?
The huge trade deficits?
The Savings and Loans crisis? (it's deja-vu all over again)
Two recessions?
Or transforming the USA from the worlds biggest creditor nation to the worlds biggest debtor?

You are correct, Druid. On all of these counts. But I doubt that you will convince Mr. brainisfried that Reagan's policies were all that bad; not when Mr. brain is swimming with dreams of Leprechaun gold, unicorns and fairy tale princesses that he has been promised on conservative talk radio.

We'll try to use use basic economic principles to show him why El Rushbo never gives interviews, and why the fantasy promises of conservatives can not possibly ever come true.

We'll see if Mr. brain will join us, or simply degrade into, well you know ...

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 16:40      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I'm from outside the US, I have heard little of his broadcasts, and only read a little from his web site, so this is just an impression, but he is not someone to be taken seriously. After all he didn't even register to vote until he was nearly 40. He is a circus sideshow, and his popularity is that he is the archetypal bar bore, and those bar bores (e.g. The Member Who Must Not Be Named) are his core audience.

What really interests me is how this financial disaster has knocked the wheels off the movement conservatism cart. Conservatives who try to pin the blame for the banking crisis on decisions and institutions set up during the Clinton administration miss the point. The key to the Clinton administration's political outlook was their notion of the middle way, which was an acknowledgement that Reagan had established a new political consensus around the ideas of low taxes, smaller government, and laissez faire free market capitalism, and that the Clinton administration would just try to smooth some of the rougher, more socially divisive edges off that. A similar thing happened over here in the UK with Blair and Brown's New Labour project. Please note that I am not commenting on either party's actual performance in power but just on how they positioned themselves, and indeed the important decisions made during the Clinton era that some think are the seed from which this catastrophe eventually grew are arguably animated by a very Reaganite view of popular capitalism. The increasingly divisive and partisan nature of US politics might at times make this consensus hard to see but it was nonetheless real.

Now after 30 odd years, recent events have shot those Reaganite ideas to pieces, and while this is not a big problem for the Democrats, the Republicans need a new tune to whistle. That Republican politicians do keep trotting out these tired old nostrums only makes them look foolish and irrelevant. It is hard to imagine that many ordinary voters now will believe that the way to build a better society is by the government constantly lowering taxes, cutting red tape, and withdrawing to let free market economics control more and more aspects of our lives. I suspect that even true believers like brainisfried here, and perhaps on his own planet even The Member Who Must Not Be Named are having the occasional dark night of the soul over this thorny problem.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 16:40      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_______________________ DoctorWho __ Thanks for the link, but I have had the luck of following this debate for a few more years than most of you. I have also studied about the French Revolution. Trickle down works as long as enough trickles down, when the trickle slows down those bottom feeders, become unsatisfied. They stop bottom feeding, or attacking their own and start moving up the food chain. So if you live in a gated community while you may feel safe, as you remember the bottom feeders play with fun toys like Pumpkin Chunkers. Now how good is the gate and tall fence if a flaming bale of hay comes raining down. I have seen some that would have no trouble throwing a half bale a quarter mile.

There are a few gated communities in Florida right now that are having problems keeping out the undesirables how long before this is indicative of a trend?

Three percent of the people in this country control 97% of the money, at some point, the have-nots will want.

I know what trickles down and it ain't wealth.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 20:30      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh
"polls by Gallup in February show that Limbaugh has less favorable ratings from the mainstream public than former President George W. Bush."

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 21:18      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately, I don't watch TV or listen to talk radio, so I've blissfully missed all this crap. Isn't he a fscking drug addict?

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 21:19      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Heh
"polls by Gallup in February show that Limbaugh has less favorable ratings from the mainstream public than former President George W. Bush."

And a lot less popular than Jesus I bet. [Razz]
Posts: 5848 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 03, 2009 21:22      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
Isn't he a fscking drug addict?

Just like GWB.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
joliet_jane
Alpha Geek
Member # 818

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 04, 2009 19:20      Profile for joliet_jane     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used to be a big Rush fan.

Then I got an education.

--------------------
Please Visit http://www.wideweb.com/phonetrips/
And for Phun on the Phone:
http://www.Telephone-Entertainment.com/

Posts: 330 | From: PA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 04, 2009 19:46      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by joliet_jane:
I used to be a big Rush fan.

Then I got an education.

Yeah, that Tom Sawyer song is stupid.
Posts: 5848 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Richard Wolf VI
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 4993

Icon 1 posted March 04, 2009 20:30      Profile for Richard Wolf VI   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
quote:
Originally posted by joliet_jane:
I used to be a big Rush fan.

Then I got an education.

Yeah, that Tom Sawyer song is stupid.
I needed that relief.

--------------------
The same old iWanToUseaMac... Who am I fooling? I'm getting a Wii now, iWanToUseaMac isn't :P
Get Opera. The best web experience.
Contest. Group. Success.

Posts: 1356 | From: BogotŠ, Colombia | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
brainisfried
Geek-in-Training
Member # 3067

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 05, 2009 10:16      Profile for brainisfried     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, this NYT extended interview of Rush from last July isn't all that bad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html

Supply side economics says that producers get a far higher return on their money than the government gets when they confiscate that money. The Laffer curve is the optimal point to set tax rates for maximum return with minimum damage. Reagan's tax cuts, which weren't all that different from JFK's, did boost federal revenues. W's did too. There are two major problems:

One, federal spending increases have outstripped the ability of any tax system to catch up. Reagan had a Democrat congress to deal with. W had his own version of triangulation with "compassionate conservatism" that drove real conservatives nuts and failed just as we said it would. McCain, for all his faults, is a budget hawk who had a decent chance of restraining spending. Obama is promising $trillion/year deficits for his Keynesian "stimulus".

Two, there's a LOT of corruption in the political system. From tax code manipulation, the Democrat fiefdoms of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the foolishness by both W and Obama of the financial bailouts instead of letting bankruptcies take their course and jailing at least the most egregious fraudsters (corruption of people lobbying and advising the Presidents), capitalism is vulnerable to corrupt governments just like every other system.

Here's a great collection of C-SPAN clips of the politicians who defended Freddie and Fannie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Posts: 39 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 05, 2009 11:11      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
__________________ Hi All __ Since this has turned into an Economic debate, lets stir the pot. Lets take Income Taxes out of the problem, and go to a finished goods tax on all non food items. Buy and sell stocks no taxes, buy food at the grocery store no taxes buy finished goods or food at the deli ready to eat, pay the POS tax. Then add in the state sales tax only on the goods not goods plus excise tax.

Producers are not hurt, and if you can afford that boat or Ferrari pay the sales taxes the poor are not hurt for food purchases unless they are eating at restaurants.

At what rate could you support the government, and pay down the debt?

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 05, 2009 13:03      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
brainisfried wrote:
Actually, this NYT extended interview of Rush from last July isn't all that bad:
]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html


tl;dr

Assuming the article is written in a way that shows him in a good light, that just means Rush Limbaugh is only a douchebag 99% of the time instead of 100%. It doesn't matter how many other people you point at and say are corrupt, bad, evil or unwashed... Rush Limbaugh is still a douchebag.

Charles Mason is a crazy serial killer and you know what? Limbaugh is no less of a douchebag.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 05, 2009 14:51      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
The Laffer curve is the optimal point to set tax rates for maximum return with minimum damage.

Um, have you actually read (and understood) the article you linked to?
From your comments, I'm guessing the answer is 'no'.

quote:
Here's a great collection of C-SPAN clips of the politicians who defended Freddie and Fannie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Ah yes, Chesty linked to a similar video a while ago.
A classic case of "proof by selective editing".
Those hearings took place when the Republicans controlled the Whitehouse, the senate, the congress, and held the majority on that committee. If the US government took no action, it's because the Republicans chose not to.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 06, 2009 07:25      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
The Laffer curve is the optimal point to set tax rates for maximum return with minimum damage. Reagan's tax cuts, which weren't all that different from JFK's, did boost federal revenues. W's did too.

What Druid said. Even conservatives put little faith in that argument. I can understand how the argument made sense for Reagan with much higher top tax rates. At that time a person might easily find that most of any extra money he made got swallowed in personal and corporate taxes, which might have inhibited ambition, and encouraged tax evasion, but that is not the case now. The only way to achieve a balanced budget at current rates is to really slash government spending.
quote:
letting bankruptcies take their course
Well that worked so well with Lehmann Brothers didn't it? Adam Smith style laissez faire free market economics are a theoretical ideal, a valuable ideal worth working towards in many instances, but with limits, and few real world markets are free. In addition, those areas of human activity labelled as vocational, (e.g. education, medicine, the military), money is a not much of an incentive and the market a poor regulator.
quote:
Actually, this NYT extended interview of Rush from last July isn't all that bad: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html
Not all that bad? Well it does just stop short of being a hagiography. On the other hand this joy from your opponents should give you pause. Your argument as I understand it is that
  • Real conservatism has not been properly tried. GWB contrary to popular impressions, compromised his principles too easily. Americans want a more uncompromising ideologically pure radical right wing Republican Party.
  • The only reason that conservative free market economic policy has not worked is
    • an unwillingness to practice the small government ideals they nominally believe in and
    • Institutionalised corruption by democrats which is everywhere if only you could see it and
    • err... thatís it.
I'm no pollster, but I do think that would be a tough sell outside your core support, and not an easy sell to any of them that might be awake. The only way you could really restrain an administration's spending after election would be to commit them to it in specifics beforehand in a manifesto (e.g. what programs will no longer receive funding, what schools hospitals etc you will be closing, whether you think the military should be run more efficiently by inviting bids from mercenary forces (only kidding!) This too might be a hard sell. I'd stay quiet about corruption if I were you. Who knows where that particular can of worms might lead or how high up, particularly when you consider the rampant cronyism of the last administration, all applicants were vetted for their politics before competence for any particular job was even considered.

The direction you are taking reminds me very much of the Labour Party in the UK during the 1980s. They too could not recognise that the game had changed. They were taken over by people who argued that it was the compromises they had made that had led to their failure, and that the electorate would be sure to respond to a real red blooded socialism. The party splintered, and they were out of power for almost 20 years before they got themselves together again, and the accumulating arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that a long period of uninterrupted power breeds brought down our Conservatives.

Your party seems to have the most unattractive aspects of both our parties during that time. If you want to exercise power again soon, which is after all the purpose of any major political party, you should stop worrying about what "real" conservatism is, be a little more humble, accept that the unthinking implementation of policies guided by some of your core beliefs are more than marginally responsible for the mess we are in, and look to extend your appeal outside a dwindling band of increasingly irrelevant fanatics. That would be good for you, good for the Democrats, and most importantly good for America and the wider world. A democracy needs at least two strong attractive and effective parties to work properly.

And your party really should stop all that shouty aggressive posturing. It's very tedious and unattractive in a grown up person.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted March 06, 2009 07:42      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
Reagan's tax cuts, which weren't all that different from JFK's, did boost federal revenues. W's did too. There are two major problems:

The first major problem is that, like many Limbaugh listeners, you don't know what you are talking about.

Take a look at the graph in the link.

Kennedy reduced top marginal tax rates from 90% to 70%, about a 22% reduction. Reagan reduced top marginal rates from 70% to 28%, about a 60% reduction. That is not "weren't all that different", in fact it is really quite different.

(BTW, Looking at your lack of math skills, I have to challenge your geek credentials, here.)

How different?

Look at those huge Republican tax cuts in the 1920s. Where did they lead us? The Great Depression.

Look at those huge tax rates (70% or greater) from the mid 30s to the 1980s, what happened then? The high rates did not deter growth and innovation. In fact, it could be argued it spurred it on. We won a big war, successfully completed the Manhattan Project, the digital computer was invented, the U.S. Interstate Highway System was built, the transistor was developed, college education was affordable, the jet age revolutionized transportation and diplomacy, satellites revolutionized communication and weather prediction (took GW Bush to ignore it with Katrina), the internet was invented (ARAPNET 1969), Polio was cured, we put a man on the moon. the cell phone was invented, the American auto industry was at its zenith, American industrial growth was at an all time high. We had arguably the best-educated, best-trained workforce in the world -- and it was working. Oh, yeah, and Mister's Jobs and Wozniak gave us the personal computer.

Reagan's tax cuts gave us what? The space shuttle "Challenger" disaster, the S&L crises, and the worst recession since ... The Great Depression.

The economy didn't start growing again until George H.W. Bush broke his promise about reading his lips and new taxes.

But you and your Limbaugh-brand, Kool-Aid drinking friends allowed an all-Republican government to cut taxes again, and what happened? The worst economic depression since ... The Great Depression.

You are correct on one point, Mr. BRAIN-IS-FRIED, the Laffer curve does not take into account human behavior, which makes it a useless model. That is one of many reasons most economists to refer to it as "The Laugher Curve."

You still haven't addressed trickle-down economics. But you have most definitively established that you have very little grasp of the truth.

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam