Rahm Emanuel smears a pile of Rush Limbaugh all over the Republican Party. It's guilt by (long and slobbering) association, and Rush is the guilt!
How's it feel, Rushbo, to know that Rahm thinks you're so despised by most Americans that he's going negative on your corpulent ass by making the simple, incontrovertible observation that you're the voice of the Republican Party? Care to run for office? We Democrats would love that.
Update: Here's good stuff on mocking the Republican rump of wingnuts. The 'nuts lack enough perspective to grasp that we're enjoying this. They rationalize that we must be afraid. Tain't so.
Update: This is lots of fun! Michael Steele says that he runs the Republican Party, not Rush. Rush, never one to keep his ego in check (nor his appetites), disagrees. Thanks, guys! Keep this story going for a few more news cycles. Let's see, how can Rahm pour more gasoline on this Republican funeral pyre?
My dream: Rush applies the charter of his day job to this hissing match and starts to sidle up to the line that it's his job to stretch - the line that separates racists from the rest of us. If Rush would just let slip that Steele is an affirmative action hiring, the ensuing shit-fight would be sweet to watch.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rahm to Rush
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Of course Rush is saying he wants the messiah to fail! So does anyone with half a brain. I believe the messiah is a great orator, and is a demanding figure, but the fundamentals of our country are being trampled upon. Do I want socialism to fail? Of course I do. Capitalism and free markets are what this country is all about, and the american dream is no longer going to be possible. Do you honestly think that taxes are not going to sky rocket when the dust settles form all his absurd spending? Where does that money come from? Im not a rich man, but I will never intrude on someones personal rights nor stand for unfair taxation because someone is better off then some slob pulling down wellfare. And if you believe the middle class is going to get tax relief, you are sadly mistaken. If all of the messiahs spendings go through, we are going to see unemployment at record highs, as the economy will not be able to stand on the pittance that people will be making. Tax cuts Tax cuts Tax cuts are what gets the economy going, putting more money in peoples pockets, not spending, spending and more spending. You democrats have believe that throwing other peoples money at problems will solve it, but Im sad to say that this is going to destroy the america we know. Look at AIG today, they are back at the trough looking for more handouts due to losses. In the next few months, you will see where all this spending has gotten us, mark my words.
Yep, give Rush a hard time, and what you get is off-topic ditto-head drivel like this. So many people with half a brain "think" like this. Those of us still in possession of an entire brain understand a little more.
Here are some questions for my anonymous poster or his friends: What programs count as welfare for you? Do you count Social Security and other social insurance programs? If not, how much does the federal government spend annually on welfare?
Progressive taxation is fair. If one of the so-called masters of the universe on Wall Street spends $10,000 dollars on a four-star meal, is that $10,000 as valuable to him as it would be spent on a used car to get a working stiff reliably to work? No way.
If you really cared about spending, you would have run Duhbya out of office. You just don't want to spend on people.
So it is the governments job to decide where that person spends his 10,000? Can you honestly believe that? Besides the fact that it goes against what this country is founded upon, do you not realize that if a person were to spend 10,000 on a meal, that 10,000 is taxed, plus the waiter gets a huge tip, and the restaraunt stays in business and more money goes into the local economy. If that person does not have the money then to spend, that owner will then go out of business, the waiter losed his job, the people supplying them with food loses their job, and the trucker bringing the food the loses their job (which is the slob that you put needs the money to get his car).
How can you stand for a socialistic government such as this? Do you really in your heart of hearts think that they can keep spending and spending and this will somehow bring us out of the recession? How can you stand for a bill that rewards people for taking out mortages that they knew damn well they could never pay, and then crap on the people that are actually making their payments? This stimulus is flawed to the max, but no one has the guts to stand up for it on the democrat side. People who voted for the obamanator are going to be greatly dissapoited when they see their taxes go up, because there is no possible way to pay for this spending without it.
Typical incoherent libertarian crap, but let me see if I can shed a little light.
What I'm talking about is how to allocate the tax burden. There are many options; here are a few related to income:
- confiscation
- progressive taxation
- flat tax
- head tax
I offered an argument for why progressive taxation is fair, although I framed it as an example. The argument I make is that the marginal $10,000 for a rich person who might spend it on a luxury values his money much less than the poor working guy who only has his marginal $10,000. The rich guy has all his necessities paid for already; the poor worker is just scraping by. It's not fair to dip into one guy's basics at the same marginal rate as the rich guy, just so the rich guy can trickle tiny little bits of his riches onto the peons beneath him.
Your comment is mostly the discredited economic theories of the right. Hardly any of it has any basis in reality at all. It's the thinned down nonsense of Ayn Rand. Some tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but mainly those targeted at the poor, unlike every Republican tax cut in history.
The place we really need socialism, albeit temporary, is on Wall St. All these companies we're bailing out (because failure would burn down the whole economy), we should own. Shareholder equity? Pfft. They gambled and lost. Once the assets are stabilized, we should sell them back to the private sector at full value.
Post a Comment