Pat Robertson denounces Rush Limbaugh, hell freezes over
By SilentPatriot Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 6:00pm
Q: How do you know Barack Obama's presidency is succeeding so far?
A: The right-wing's most influential minds (?) are engaging in hysterical slapfights with each other.
You surprised people last year when you said you were impressed with Obama so far. How do you feel about him now, after several weeks in the White House?
He hasn't been as skillful in a number of areas. I think he's showing partisanship. What I said on CNN is that if he's not partisan and doesn't swing out at the left, he has the potential to be a great president. But look at his cabinet appointments. And the stimulus package is a disaster. He let [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi write the bill. He should have exerted more leadership about what went into the stimulus package. It's not over, but I still want to give him the benefit of every doubt, and I definitely hope he succeeds. It wouldn't be good for Americans for him not to. We don't want a president who fails at domestic and foreign policy.
So you don't subscribe to Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" school of thought?
That was a terrible thing to say. I mean, he's the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. And if he doesn't, it hurts us all. Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally.
I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Pat Robertson is right: Like it or not, Barack Obama is our President. If he fails, America fails; the two are inseparable. Rush Limbaugh revealed a whole lot about his brand of "patriotism" when he made those ridiculously bone-headed remarks. It really is quite amazing that the GOP has turned so enthusiastically to him as their savior.
Login or Register to post comments.
for obama to succeed, he cannot let congress ride ruffshod over him
... i'm sure it'll have no problem thawing out when el rushbo comes home to papa.
Imagine that
PR doesnt want to be marginalized
Hel is frozen over.
Non-heroic Vikings only crossed their marine crematory fire to get there.
Nothing like getting a lecture on rational thinking from Pat Robertson.
Hey i am more conservative and i think he is nuts. as is oreilly and hannity. they think the louder they yell the more people will listen to them. honestly, with the crap we are going through right now it is time for citizens on both sides to come together exchange ideas and maybe come up with a solution, god knows we can't expect our congressmen and women to do it.
Before we can start considering conservative ideals seriously, you guys need to do a big deal of spring cleaning.
You know, since you guys love to preach personal responsibility so much. Maybe, just maybe it is time to take your own advice?
Honestly, I believe a functioning democracy needs different ideologies and points of view. However, after the past few decades of loony behavior from the right, and seeing the outcome of their policies. It is time for the conservative movement to figure what the f*ck went wrong.
I am a bit tired of seeing conservatives pretend like the past 8 years never happened. Before we can start taking you guys seriously, you need to actually earn back respect. And that requires hard work...
Well, if you are considering GWB a Conservative... then you are mistaken, He did not act like one. This, in effect is the first problem people have. A lot of people consider Democrats automatically Liberal, but this is not true either.
As for the Government and what everyone needs to understand is this quote from John Adams - "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
So, I suppose that means, if you do not fit into those categories, Europe is calling for you. I may even offer my services to help you pack. :)
who gets to decide what is "moral" and "religious"? who makes that "judgement"? i kind of wonder if that "judgement" is absolute/excepted by all who say they're "religious" and "moral". you made some interesting points.
Thanks for proving my point. It is funny to see you guys throwing your boy Bush under the bus, faster than Paris Hilton drops her knickers in an orgy. For being a bunch of fellers, who are so quick to request responsibilities from everybody else, you sure run like rats from your own fuckups...
Last I checked our country is ruled by the constitution. Not by what John Adams did or did not say. I can provide some choice quotes by other founding fathers regarding the perils of religion.
So if you want, since your ass is doing all the talking. I can offer my services to relocate your face to a firm place inside your rectum. Yes?
was a deist, wasn't he? Personally, I like to quote the late, great, "theologian", George Carlin who said, "Thou Salt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself."
Now now, play nice, GWB was not a true conservative, his record shows that.
If you think about what Adams said though, and take a look around the country... you may realize something. "In God We Trust" is on the money we use, whether you or a religious affiliation or not, you use this money. Our Pledge, the oath the President takes and many other oaths around the country, "So Help Me God"
The other founding fathers may have objected, we may never know, but we do know what we have in the here and now.
used to go to a bar that had a sign over the cash register which said "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash". The God references, some of which were added under pressure from the Jesus freaks in the McCarthy era, are amusingly ironic, seeing how many CEOs didn't notice those inscriptions while they were stealing our money. You dismiss Bush not being a true conservative, the theory being that "conservatism" can't fail, it can only be failed by fake "conservatives". Can you give an example of true, successful, governance? That is without massive borrowing. And Ronnie Raygun doesn't count. At all.
George W. Bush is a corporate fascist. And the entire republican party is nothing more than a mindless lockstep goon squad for corporate multi-national America.
They are completely amoral, and psychopathic in their views. The republican party wasn't always like this, and I don't know exactly when they morphed into the malignant cancer they have become, but that isn't important now.
They most certainly do need to get their house in order; but I doubt that will happen until they loose another 6 senate seats next year, and their last tool for obstructing the will of the people is removed.
Also, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of our other founding fathers didn't subscribe to religions. They were deists. I'm sure they would get a chuckle out of old John "the puritan" Adams comments.
some posters might want to sit down before they read this (dont say i didn't tell you)
But the above comment is bs.
John, it also says in the declaration of independence that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that doesn't always take the form of what adams says. if it did then we would absolutely be a theocracy, and more than likely have a religious oligarchy running the country (hmmmmm sounds a bit like iran).
no diversity is what make america great. when we choose not to embrace that diversity is the day we fail the spirit in which this country was created.
"that doesn't always take the form of what Adams says. if it did then we would absolutely be a theocracy, and more than likely have a religious oligarchy running the country"
"In God We Trust" "So Help Me God" "One Nation Under God" ...anyone....anyone...
The Pledge of Allegiance was modified from the original. The "one nation under God" part was added in 1954, so don't attribute that to the founders.
This was first stamped on a coin in 1864. It was only made mandatory in 1955. So this has nothing to do with the founders; rather, the founders had nothing to do with it.
As for the Government and what everyone needs to understand is this quote from John Adams - "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
So, I suppose that means, if you do not fit into those categories, Europe is calling for you. I may even offer my services to help you pack. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
So there you go. The republicrites refuse to play nice, regardless. Ok whinney. I am religious - atheism is classified as a religion, and I am moral (how dare you question me!). So since I fit into both categories, and have no plan to move anywhere, do you have any more high school grade smart ass comments to show us that the republicrites are still bent on either regaining power or destroying the United States in the process. Yeah. Didn't think so.
.
It fricken snowed here today. It doesn't happen very often. And ofcourse it happened today while I'm out in the sticks workin on some house.
Kinda dicey gettin outta there.
We've had 2 days of cold rain and hail! it must be true!
Hah! Here in Humboldt we had very light scattered showers, almost no wind and a mostly sunny day.
Here's the proof! Tonight's sunset from my house.
http://woodsnbeaches.blogspot.com/
We've had below freezing temperatures and snow cover since the 2nd week of November. That was a long time ago!
Maybe this GOP chasm will create another ice age? Ironically, the neocons would be resposible for ending global warming - which never really existed anyway. Right?
to apologize with relaxed sphincter.
"Barack Obama is our President. If he fails, America fails"
And that is exactly why we (on the left) were screaming for the Impeachment of George w. Bush! Becuase as he was failing we were all failing!
His lies and ignorance helped create the mess were in now and he thinks the worst thing about his presidency is he didn't get to screw up Social Security!
Liberals didn't want george bush to fail. That wanted him to stop failing.
I read posts on political blogs already calling Pres. Obama, "the worst president ever."
Nope. No projection of desires going on there.
the universe, human stupidity, and the capacity for projection of a right winger.
You would assume that it would take an infinite amount of gall, for the GOP leadership... to claim any sort of higher moral ground regarding fiscal matters. And yet, we get treated to a litany of GOP talking heads acting as if the past 8 years, which saw the doubling of the deb accrued during more that 100 years, never happened. And with a straight face, act as if they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
It takes balls of steal, scratch that... it takes balls of titanium to act with such lack of decency...
At this point, It is easy to see... that whatever a conservative blames other people of committing, he or she themselves are guilty of. And whatever a GOPer claims to be, you can safely assume they will do the exact opposite.
If not take a look:
Fiscal conservative: largest deficits have been accrued under GOP governments.
Compassionate conservatism: an illegal war that has killed hundreds of thousands innocent civilians, biggest cuts in social welfare, heck even child medical programs have been cut to bare minimum, and on and on... all during, you guessed it... a GOP administration.
Family values: like I don't know adultery, child abuse, sexual harassment, etc... which seem to be the favorite pastimes of many in the GOP hierarchy.
And on, and on...
Good comment and points. Looks like your on a roll tonight. Don't stop kickin' wingnut ass!
I have been up for like 48 hrs (doing applied research usually means throwing away normal sleeping patterns, esp. near publication deadlines). Thus my writing is worse than usual...
And no democrats have skeletons in their closets. if you are going to talk about lack of morals then you should talk about everyone's lack of morals. I am pretty sure that you have done things you wish you hadn't. I know I have. So lets hear you go off on all prominent figures transgression and not just the ones that fuel your hatred. As for the rest, ya i pretty much agree with you.
that I have never seen a democrat (I am a liberal, so I went independent long time ago) running on a crusade-like "moral" platform.
Besides, when a Dem has fucked up. At least in this place, we are quick to denounce them.
Yes, I have done plenty of stuff that I am less than proud of... much like everybody else on this planet. The thing is that I have never denied it, nor acted as I have never ever made any mistake or as if I did not have any shortcoming. Which is why I have no problem forgiving people.
The issue with the GOP is that they have been running on platforms which claim to have absolute moral higher ground. Always imposing a set of moral standards on other people, standards which the GOP do not bother to even pretend to live up to... for the most part.
The big difference is the reeking hypocrisy of the "holier than thou" GOP crowd. It stinks, and frankly I am tired of being lectured on anything by a morally bankrupt group which has been shown to be composed of nothing more than parasites, thieves and perverts.
The GOPers, when caught... are always the first ones to ask for forgiveness. Yet ironically, they are the ones less likely to extend such courtesy to other people in similar binds.
The obvious attempt by the right to pretend the last 8 years never happened just shows the total lack of character and morality so prevalent on that side of the aisle.
Sure the dems are no saints. But it is not up to the GOP to claim they are at the same level, since the magnitude of their fuckups is much much much higher.
hey i am not disagreeing with you that there are immoral republicans. just saying lets be fair.
I would have an iota of respect for the "sane" republicans if they had opened their mouths during Bush's reign of fun and games.
The fact that some of you only regained the ability to speak out as soon as Obama was about to begin his term... What a miracle, eh?
The constant bickering when a Dem is in office coupled with the complicit silence when a GOP administration is in effect, makes the likes of you look like massive hypocrites.
Respect and benefit of the doubt are earned, not granted. Deal with it... you guys have a lot of making up for the 8 years of silence.
tyler durden,
i would greatly appreciate it if you don't clump me as a "you" when talking about the republicans. i am not registered with the party nor will i ever register with a party. i happen to think washington's warning about political parties holds true then, in the leadup to the civil war and now.
yes maybe more republicans should have spoken up during the bush admin. but they didn't. that is in the past. your criticism of the gop all of a sudden speaking out against obama may have validity.
no body is a republican now... and now it is not the time to look back. Right? Time to move forward, positive thoughts... LOL.
The point still stands. I never heard more than couple of beeps, from people in your neck of the political woods, during the past 8 years. And now, with the new year and all of the sudden, voila... you regain the ability to speak.
Don't you think that makes you look a bit hypocritical?
for those elected officials, yes. for those individuals that are desperately bushites what did you expect?
and you are still referring to me as you. please stop.
If they did, they'd have been branded as traitors to the country and party and they know it! Such is the insidiousness of the GOP that's being bandied about here. They could have cared less that the Constitution was being shredded or wars mishandled or citizens wire-tapped, etc. and now are being obstructionist now that the Dems are in power in spite of our new President's best efforts to be inclusive (see-that's what "bipartisanship" means).
If they banned or outlawed the GOP tomorrow, I'd party like its 1999!
Valerie Plame.
Outing an undercover CIA operative is one thing. Treason.
Doing nothing about it is another.
But now we get to forgive and forget.
Lets all hold hands and sing kumbyya .
Would be nice if that was reciprocated, by you, and the infernal GOP.
As for the GOP being fair...I ain't holdin my breath.
...here in Houston just fell ten degrees. :)
the economy in Hell is so goddamn bad that you can rent ice skates there for 50 cents an hour.
'nuff said.
the (R) party really has an identity crisis. they actually listening to these two entertainers outside of the beltway. limpNuts hates america otherwise he wouldn't continue the old politics of division. he just feeds more deception for the haters. he's already working his audience about "socialized medicine".
I guess that's what happens when WRETCHED EXCESS meets up with A COMPLETE LACK OF CONTENT.
Yesterday Rush was BRAGGING about the SUPER-LARGE TV screen he has in his private rear-projection theater he has at home. He sez it's the second-largest consumer-grade screen in the country... and his media contact guy wants to sell him a LARGER, MORE MODERN ONE. He claimed that HE purchases the really expensive stuff for tens of thousands of dollars... so that the rest of us can purchase smaller screens for less money.
Rush is more FULL OF HIMSELF than Governor Baluga-goyovich.
Hello Rush. Meet Mr. 94% marginal tax rate. Enjoy!
Pat, "Smell my finger!"
Rush, "No, smell mine!"
Good one. Starting to get a stitch in my side.
a hernia.
W.W.F.
cage match??
he's right, but it pisses me off when people like him say things like:
You know, because King George never swung out at the right or acted like a partisan, did he. Or does that logic only apply to people with a D in front of their name Pat?
actually, i do have to agree with robertson on this one. if he swings too far to the left he will do nothing but cause a division as big or bigger than bush. furthermore, he will alienate the moderate voting block, which actually put him in office.
I know Bush was very partisan on a great deal of things but partisan politics is one of the things obama said he would not engage in as president. and though i didn't vote for him i think that if he is smart that he can be the one to bring the parties together and get stuff done.
"Only conservative ideals are acceptable. Liberal ideologies must met with extreme prejudice."
Funny, you demand acceptance and understanding of conservative ideals now that they are going to become an endangered species... as people are catching up to the fact that such ideals are the same ones that have brought us down to this mess. But, hey... you don't even have to waste your beautiful mind tolerating us messy liberals.
I think you need to buy a new dictionary. You may be surprised to know that bipartisan is not defined as "forcing democrats to accept republican policies."
I am not some troll spewing forth gop talking points. yes i am more conservative but i challenge you to look at my posts on
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/contessa...
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/i...
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/opposing-s...
you will find that i talk about blending both ideologies.
... somebody would park a truck full of oxicontin outside crushed limpball's gated community estate, just to watch the f#cker go berserk like pac-man.
and a moron...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjV94_e8LMc&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylGJO6I30M&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuOzte9Ugck&fe...
I'd hold off on buying those ice skates for now. Pat Robertson only has a Pat Robertson's self interest at heart. I'm sure he's thinking that hey if Barack Obama is bi-partisan enough to embrase Rick Warren maybe I can cash in by being on the president's good side. There's absolutely nothing altruistic about this sleezy man.
One time... at church camp... he admitted that Global Warming was real and caused by greenhouse gasses.
it's slightly o-t, but not really, and i won't be around for the open, 'cause it's the ol' bullfrog's b-day, and my friends are forcing me to come out.
if you ever want to know the secret to conquering neocon blowhards like el rushbo, watch the monty python skit "confuse-a-cat."
it is the inspiration behind every single comment i've ever dropped here...
Like introducing logic into an anti-logic universe? Watch the neocon heads explode. Kablooey!
"We don't want a president who fails at domestic and foreign policy."
Yes. Because that would be bad.
I guess you slept right through your alarm clock set for Jan. 20, 2001, right?
So, Pat Robertson is the rational and progressive wing of the Republik
Party?
God help us all.
He's not right. He's just parroting what everyone has been saying for months (years/centuries?).
Considering some of the truly vile and hateful things Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Hannity/Beck say and get away with its not surprising people don't think the latest outrage is going to cause any negative consequences either. However right from the beginning when Rush said this I thought this could be the one. This comment forces his supporters to either appear unpatriotic or denounce Rush. Which path do you think public conservatives will take?
well you can agree with pat that limbaugh is losing it but nothing else pat said is even close to true
obama was absolutely right wing trying to be bi partisent, the right wing wanted obama and the democrats to own the bill plain and simple
you guys are not gonna believe what I heard on the cbs radio news station today
the cbs spokesperson had the nerve to say;
"in a couple of months we'll see if the democrats were right about the stimulous or if the republicans were right that a bettter idea is tax cuts"
give me a friggin break
we know as a fact these "tax cuts" (which are tax redistribution not tax cuts) have CAUSED the problem we face, there is no need to see if "the republicans had a better idea", we KNOW there idea caused this problem
under reagan. no one better personifies their principles and morals better. and no one has done more to get the GOP and the country to where it is today...
Are they trying to disprove the adage, "You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's noses?"
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose...but you can't wipe your friends on the couch.
May be either, saying this because he's smart enough to see the writing on the wall...or, that he said it because limpballs went too far.
As far as I'm concerned...they could both hold hands as they skip into irrelevancy.
At least Pat's consistent. He said basically the same thing when Bush was in power.
That said... Pat Robertson is the primary reason I no longer consider myself a Christian. If he's supposed to be the spokesperson for all Christians then I didn't want to be a part of Christianity.
I don't think so. I don't know how the hell this petrified group of human beings thinks that anything we do going forward is a disaster. We have a freaking mess on our hands and the congress is trying to fix it. Eight years of f**kng up and now that it don't look so pretty it's Pelosi's fault that it doesn't change in a day? Come on. And the Republican's claiming Obama didn't reach out? That's just bull. The Republicans who are left want it their way and it isn't happening. Spoiled little rich boys.
Mwahaaahaaaa...! It has begun. They are eating their own.
The Republican Party is such a train wreck. I love it.
"It really is quite amazing that the GOP has turned so enthusiastically to him as their savior."
And right there is the real reason Crazy Pat 'voice of Satan' Robertson went after Limpdick. That's a position Crazy Pat used to hold and he wants it back!
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin will make a nice 2012 ticket
http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=997&cid=x0...
...is understandable and makes perfect sense under some circumstances.
Bush presented the Left with some huge moral dilemmas. If he succeeded in Iraq, wouldn't that just encourage similar reckless behavior in the future? If Iraq had been a breeze, wouldn't Bush have gone after Iran? Yes, but, didn't Bush failure mean dead American soldiers? How can an American root for presidential failure if that means thousands of dead and mutilated young Americans? Looking at the big picture, it is possible to morally accept the undesirable costs of Bush's failure, in order to prevent the far greater numbers of dead and wounded that success would have encouraged. It wasn't necessarily a battle of ideologies, but of specific policies applied to specific events.
Likewise, it is understandable that Rush and other right wingers would want Obama to fail. In ordinary times that would mean some relatively low level harm accepted as a trade off to prevent Obama -- a Democrat -- from solidifying and even increasing his party's power. Unfortunately, these aren't ordinary times or circumstances, and the battle is primarily ideological. If Obama succeeds, Rush and his ilk fear that success will usher in an era of progressive policy, which he defines as socialism. Major initiatives that the Right has been opposing for many decades, e.g., universal health care, could win the day and the Right could be consigned to the margins for decades to come (see the 1930s). But failure in this case could mean absolute disaster. It means death, poverty, homelessness, potentially permanent reduction in standards of living and other truly horrible outcomes. The Right needs Obama to fail, because they fear his success will show their ideology to be what it is -- a big yawning void unable to confront real problems or satisfy the legitimate needs of most Americans. This isn't a simple equation where Obama's success or failure equates to marginal electoral advantage and a slight shift to the Left.
If Obama and his allies don't save the financial system (with or without saving individual banking entities), then we could be looking at another depression. It could mean America's permanent forfeiture of economic and political preeminence, and worse, much worse, millions of victims thrown into poverty and out of health coverage and stable housing. In short, the price is so high that even Pat Robertson understands what failure means.
But it should come as no surprise that Rush -- a man of such bloated ego and self-importance -- would not be able to see the costs of failure. No matter what happens to the US economy, Limbaugh has no economic worries. He will be able to live a life of ease and comfort, regardless of what happens to his fellow citizens. With nothing on the line, Rush can pretend this is a much simpler struggle. If the current crisis doesn't convince a solid majority of Americans that the Republicans have nothing worthwhile to offer, then nothing will.
Limbaugh is a genuinely bad person for whom selfishness and greed are the alpha and omega of existence. If the government could run an efficient health care system that provided universal coverage and spread costs and benefits equitably across society, and it could be proven that the market can not and never will offer anything but growing numbers of uninsured and underinsured citizens and care that is increasingly unaffordable to all but the wealthiest Americans, Rush would oppose that system because it was run by the government. Thus, the argument is purely ideological. Outcomes don't matter. All that matters is who has the power, and in that case Rush will always come down on the side of failure for his opponents no matter what it costs anyone else. And he's the most popular voice of the Republican Party today. Frightening.
OK - where to begin. I read most of these posts here, and so far I can find NONE in-which any of you actually know what Rush was talking about. Looks an awful lot like, to me, you're simply reading someone else's take on what Rush said - as did Robertson. Yes, Rush said "I hope he fails" - but 2 seconds after that he explained why. None of these liberal/left wing blogs ever write that part, it's totally ignored. So - assuming this actually gets posted - the reason Rush said that, is that Obama's policy statements, that which Obama says he wants to accomplish are liberal, and some would say socialist. So, obviously someone who is Conservative would not want those policies to succeed. If you believe that true conservative policies (hint ** Bush was not a fiscal conservative) are better for the country, then obviously you would not want to see liberal policies be put into place - because it would be your belief that those policies would hurt the country.
That is exactly why Rush is correct in what he said. Take a look at this stimulus. First, Obama says it will create or 'save' 3.5 million jobs. OK - how do we define which ones were 'saved'? Total B.S. on his part with that one. Since it's not going to actually create anywhere near that many jobs, Obama says this, so that it can be used as a scapegoat later on. Next, he says there is "no pork" in this bill. Lets see, the entire thing is nothing but pork - and don't forget that most of it will not be spent for another 2 or 3 years. Obama said during the campaign that he would make bills like this public for at least a couple days so that anyone could read what was being voted on... on this, the first major bill to come across his desk? He himself hasn't read it! Most of congress hasn't read it!!! Good God man, he hasn't even been in office a hundred days, and has already spent more than Bush ever even came close too in a bill. Oh, and the one that really got me - he has that town hall type meeting and this idiot who works at McDonalds is asking how Obama is going to help him, and Obama mentions his tax rebate portion. $13.00... $13.00 is what Obama is going to do to help this poor moron!!!! The kid was so stupid he doesn't even realize that bush probably helped him more by giving him $300 all at once!!!
And nobody seems to be thinking about what all of this spending is going to cost them. Oh, Obama will wait a while, but eventually he'll have to raise taxes to start paying this back (plus interest) at some point. This one bill, that very few read - yet voted for, that's gonna give us better golf parks and an extra $13.00 in our pocket is gonna take years to pay back. So, no I wish Obama had not succeeded in passing this bill... and I hope he somehow fails at passing the next big stimulus that some in congress are already talking about.
So, what would a true conservative have done? Simple. Cut taxes across the board and cut government spending. Give the banks a tax incentive for granting new loans, give people tax breaks for purchasing a new home. Reduce un-needed/un-wanted government programs/spending to cover the cost - so that the people don't have to just pay for all of this later.
Oh, and about Bush. No, I never liked Bush particularly - I just felt (and still do) that he was better than Gore or Kerry. I thought he spent way too much, he should have gotten rid of Rumsfield sooner than he did, and cracked down on illegal immigration (and before you start saying I'm a bigot - my wife is from Mexico, she doesn't like illegal immigration either).
Nearly every 'promise' that Obama has made on the campaign trail are all policies that have been tried before. In some cases tried before in this country, and in other, other countries in the past. But they all have one thing in common - all of them have failed their original goals in the long run. This is why Rush said "I hope he fails" - because if Obama fails, the country succeeds!!!
Rush (and implicitly you) want Obama to fail if he pursues policies that are in opposition to Rush's supply-side theories? These "trickle-down" concepts have been shown to be abject failures, even prompting a (sort of) mea culpa from Ayn Rand disciple Alan Greenspan. Please provide an example of successful "conservative" governance.
Simple, but it never happens. Your post is delusional. Conservatives always talk about cutting taxes and spending, but they never manage the latter, for some pretty straightforward reasons -- they value power above all else and know they won't get re-elected if they cut spending "across the board;" the people don't want across the board spending cuts -- they want other people's priorities cut, not their own, so that leaves conservatives back at doing what is necessary to stay in power -- cut taxes and increase spending. Now, there is a policy that has been shown to fail.
Your historical analysis is completely bogus, which is not surprising because it was written from an ideological rather than a historical perspective. Clinton raised taxes and the Republicans (especially conservatives) predicted cataclysm. What they got was growth and prosperity. The Republican mantra of always cutting taxes is actually the policy that has been shown to be a failure (as recently as George W. Bush).
In my post, I acknowledged the ideological basis for wanting presidents to fail (so I guess, contrary to your post, someone may understand where Republicans are coming from). But Rush is not a conservative. He's a blowhard. A buffoon. And a thoroughly loathsome character with a double standard that challenges the best of them.
As for Obama's campaign promises already having been tried and failed, you really should be more specific. If you actually knew any history, you'd be aware that some of the most prosperous times in American history have come when Democrats were in power. If one considers Obama's health care proposal, I'll agree it isn't a good plan, but not because it is socialism, but because it clings to the market driven health care system we already have that is the laughing stock of the developed world. What has been shown to work are single payer universal health care systems. Since we spend vastly more per capita on health care than other countries and are free to take the best of all the working systems already in existence, there really is no excuse for our not covering everyone with excellent coverage. The reason we don't is because of conservative stupidity that places ideology above workable solutions. As I said about Rush, and I imagine you can be included, even though our approach is an abject failure and many other countries have superior systems with superior outcomes to ours, Rush is against a single payer system for ideological reasons. It isn't a question of what will work -- that's been demonstrated already -- it's simply a matter of ideology. In a nutshell, Rush (and I assume you) are willing to have people die, have shortened life expectancies, and suffer economic hardship and ruin for the sake of an ideology that doesn't work. It's easy to claim that you don't believe that people will be better off, but unfortunately there are real world outcomes to examine that show just how bad our system is and just how much better others are and the only reason you have to oppose such systems is naked ideology that has nothing to do with reality.
It's pathetic, stupid, and immoral.
How many break through medical procedures, and or advances have came from Canada? How many from Cuba?
The problem with the 'idea' of the government actually controlling health care, is that it will ultimately lead to the government telling us how to live our lives. Already we have states that have banned smoking in public, or saturated fats from a menu. While yes, I agree this (on the face of it) is good for public health - I just don't like GOVERNMENT (state or federal) telling a private business what it can or can't do. If a person wants to stuff their face with burgers and fries - that should be their choice. As soon as our tax dollars are put towards public health care, then there will be people complaining that some are overweight, and some take risks by jumping out of a plane, or playing football, or eating a freaking burger. And if there are enough of those complaints that will appease one political party, then that party will do everything it can to make that activity illegal.
As for your comment about history (that I don't know my history) - you imply that I somehow stated that when taxes are raised, that an economy falters. I never said that, and I would say that is not true. What I am saying, is that a good way to quickly 'boost' an economy (some might even say stimulate) would be to lower taxes. You forget that we did also have a bubble and a burst during Clinton's years that was much like the housing we just went through. Only with Clinton it was the .com business's. And just before Bush took office we had a decline in the economy. It wasn't as bad as the one we are in now - no, but I personally believe that the current problems are being made worse by these stimulus packages... history will show if I turn out to be right or wrong about that.
...climate and weather (so to speak).
Health care coverage has nothing to do with medical breakthroughs. America's failure to deliver health coverage to its citizens (or conversely to make it available in an affordable equitable way) is not tied to the research done in universities and by the NIH that has created medical advances. And the stupidity of our own system is not somehow required to create the conditions needed for medical research. I imagine when there is an unseasonably cold spell, you pounce on that as "proof" that climate change is a hoax. Unfortunately, by itself, it's not even meaningful evidence. You are confusing apples and oranges in claiming a connection between health care systems and medical research.
Think about it for a minute -- we could devote all of our resources to medical research and deny health care coverage to any percentage of Americans we choose (through structural choices). That way we would have many more breakthroughs and even worse health care. You've created a phantom to support your (hopeless) argument.
I didn't forget the 90s bubble at all. That's one reason why I'm undoubtedly vastly less enamored of America's "free" market system than you are. The US has never had a sustainable economy. That's why we jerk from boom to bust, but worse, it's why somewhere out there is likely to be one final bust from which we won't recover no matter how many stimulus packages we hurl at it. My point was that the theory that tax cuts are a necessary element of economic growth is nonsense. You committed yourself to fixing our current problems in part through more tax cuts, which eight years of George Bush just demonstrated do not result in robust job creation. You're desperately clinging to a failed ideology with no idea what else to do. And you offered no response to the inevitable failure to cut spending. Face it, there is a constituency for every spending program. What you call wasteful spending, others may call investment or reflecting foresight. In the end, whether it's simply because Republicans care about nothing but getting re-elected or because it is undeniable that Americans don't want spending cut, spending never seems to get cut (to the extent necessary to offset tax cuts). The great success of the Republican Party has been to sucker the American people into supporting both tax cuts and continued spending -- something so stupid it boggles the mind. Logically, there is nothing wrong with "tax and spend." It may not be the best policy (in any or every case), but it is at least grounded in reality. What is utterly illogical and indefensible is the conservative/Republican plan of "tax cut and spend." Amazingly, the only time that Republicans seem to recognize the necessity of offsetting spending cuts is when they are out of power.
Not really. This isn't a controlled laboratory experiment. If Obama's stimulus package doesn't solve or significantly ameliorate the current recession, that doesn't mean it was the wrong approach; it could just as easily mean it was the right approach inadequately funded, as many economists now argue. Further, if this stimulus package fails, that failure provides absolutely no evidence that your (or any other) approach would have been better. We don't get to put half the economy on placebo or an alternative treatment to see how that works out. What we can do is look at the last eight years and their anemic job creation and decide whether such a record really supports more of the same.
Everything else aside, in the midst of an economic downturn like this, just which economists are arguing that the best way to get the economy going again is through spending cuts? There has been lots of revisionist and defensive rhetoric recently about FDR's supposed "failure" to end the Great Depression. All the conservative/Republican critics say it was WWII that ended the Depression, not the New Deal. Fine. But it certainly wasn't spending cuts that did it. Or balancing the budget. Or tax cuts. It was massive government intervention and spending. Tax rates were high, not low. Exactly how does that aid the conservative/Republican ideological cause?
Of course, if the current stimulus package fails, that failure will be offered by you and your ilk as "proof" that your way was better. The mindlessness of that argument deserves only derisive laughter, but it will be treated in the mainstream media as though it is the gold standard of rational thought. It's no wonder we're in such trouble.
If there is one thing that the current situation ought to have made obvious to every thinking person, it's that economists really don't know what the hell they are talking about. We have a system that deplores planning, but depends on guessing. Someone decides how many widgets the American Widget Factory should sell, and if it falls short of that guess, then AWF's stock price takes a beating because they failed to meet "expectations." But what if the guess had been 25% lower? Then, AWF would be in fat city and their stock would soar. Every month we have economists (and financiers) guessing what unemployment will be, or housing starts, or sales, or whatever. And every month someone is right and someone is wrong, as you'd expect when people are guessing. But what we don't have is some body of economists who are routinely and consistently right.
This shouldn't be about petty blame and electoral advantage. Wanting a president to fail when the consequences of that failure are as potentially catastrophic as what could happen now is both stupid and immoral. It is wishing for suffering simply so one doesn't have to reconsider mindlessly held ideological beliefs.
Your argument about the government running your life because of a health care system is a fantasy. Have you ever been to England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.? It's funny I've never had the feeling that I was witnessing anything like the horror you fear (or pretend to fear). Besides, there is nothing that says we have to create a system exactly like anyone else's. We're supposed to be the great innovators. In truth, we're a bunch of superstitious cowards who construct elaborate lies to avoid simple truths.
I can see Canada from my yard. I've spent a lot of time there in the last fifteen years, and I've gotten to know and befriended lots of Canadians, none of whom would trade their health cares system for ours. Is that because they like having the government monitor and direct their lives through health care decisions? Hardly. Certainly they have complaints about their system. But they spend about half what we spend per capita on health care. It seems reasonable that some of their complaints might be answered if they chose to spend more. There are definitely people in Canada who are dissatisfied with their system. From my experience they seem to be largely people who have either had poor outcomes (as there will be in any and every system) or who have enough money to buy whatever coverage they want under any system. And of course there are the zealous free marketeers, who would gladly suffer (or at least have other people suffer) any amount of unnecessary pain, disease, and death as long as they get to hang onto their ideology.
Pathetic.
ok, you want an example of trickle down economics working - easy. The owner of my company... he's personally worth millions. 3 years ago, as our company was doing very well (until Congress changed hands to democrats I might point out) - many of us were given raises. When he has more money, he is more apt to spend that money. He has a private jet that he uses all of the time. His money is then going to the mechanics that maintain his jet, and the pilot that flies it, and storage fees and various other fees that I personally don't know anything about (because it's not really my business). Now with the economy slowing, he hasn't been as generous with his money - he hardly ever flies anywhere. Nobody has gotten a raise for at least 6 months, and many have been laid off. When he spends more money (such as giving me a raise) - I then spend my money at food joints, retail stores, etc. and thus that money ultimately filters down to the worker at the bottom rung of the corporate ladder. It's common sense. If the rich don't spend- or don't have as much to spend, then... yep... less is spent, and less goes into the pockets of those mechanics, salesmen, window washers, cooks, etc, etc.
Now, give me an example of when government spending has actually done what Obama is proposing. Some point to FDR and the Great Depression - but that time is not now. First off, I would argue that the war is what pulled us out of the Depression - but put that aside for a moment and lets assume that the "New Deal" was what actually worked. If it did, then what were the other circumstances at the time as compared to now? What was our GDP, what was our national debt? What was our production capacity? Remember, back then everything was made mostly in USA - now most products we buy are from other countries. Please put my mind at ease and explain how some of this frivolous stuff, like money for parks and golf courses that are being asked for by some states is actually going to create a significant number of jobs over a long period of time. What happens when the park work is finished? What happens when the school is finished being built? This 'infrastructure' parts of the stimulus (which is the vast majority of it) are 'nice' - but they do nothing LONG TERM to provide jobs, and thusly money for anyone - once the job is finished, the job is gone. Then a few years later, we eventually have to pay this stuff back - again, with interest. So, short term yet - I would agree that there will be a boost to the economy, but long term no, we'll be in worse shape than we are now - or rather our children will be.
And, just so you know, I'm not playing favorites. I was against Bush's tarp money as well. Government IS the problem - not the solution. Government should get out of the way. If these businesses can not stay afloat in their own right, then why should we the people bail them out? If these CEO's are so corrupt and or ignorant, why should we hand them our hard earned cash (through taxes)? If GM can't figure out how to build a car that people will buy - why should we pay for their failure through taxes? The whole premise is flawed from the beginning. Is any system perfect? No, there will always be corruption - people scamming the system for every penny they can get. But if my choice is to spend my own money how I see fit - letting it trickle down to those I choose to shop with... and the other choice is government taking my money, and spending it on supposedly failed business's - then YOU BET YA, I want the first option!!! Get Uncle Sam out of our back pockets, and you'll see people, rich and poor, spend more of their own money. And those companies that sell the stuff people want will survive, those that don't will fail. It's when Government tries to tell private business what to do (say, what loans to give - or what cars to build) that problems arise.
the marginal tax rates are cut, bubble economies develop. It happened with stocks and localized real estate in the 1920s, stocks and housing in the 1980s, and again in the Bush error with wildly inflated stock and housing values. 60 Minutes recently showed how oil speculation drove up fuel prices. When the ultra-wealthy get tax cuts, they start searching for new investment vehicles, creating bubbles. In 1960, business taxes accounted for about 25% of Federal receipts, now it's about 10%. The economic growth rate was around 6%, now, 3% is considered good. That 15% difference has to be made up by individuals or borrowed. Borrowing is the preferred republican method. It allows them to play Santa Claus but mortgage the payment. It's a strategy that has been repeatedly tried and failed.
I agree with what the RObertson is saying about sticking behind Obama, but my first question is why is this pastor getting media attention to talk about policy in this country? When did his opinion matter. Last I checked people like him (preachers, religious leaders) are exempt from this kind of talk. This should be the first reaction to the news story
Adams and Jefferson were Unitarians. Washington was a deist. He attended the Episcopal church but did not participate in rites. Franklin was a deist. Leading minds were deists and deeply conscious of morality. Compare this to the oft-mentioned fact that capitalists themselves view their own conduct as amoral by its very nature. The imperative is to make a profit. So here is the root of the problem of capitalism. When those who participate in it behave without a sense of caring for others, the basis of all moral conduct (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) then it is outside the realm of that moral conduct that John Adams saw as an imperative. I've heard that some of the leading schools that award MBAs dropped mandatory business ethics courses for their degrees back in the 1980s. This is about the time that Friedman introduced the concept of using crises such as disasters to force through advantageous amoral captalist societal and government changes.
Login or Register to post comments.