Yet Another Boot to the Head Thread!

[Avi]

My personal nominee for the prestigious "Boot to the Head" award goes to...



Right-wing talk show host / conservative demagogue / comedian Rush Limbaugh!

Does anything else really need to be said?  The guy's been calling on Republicans to pray for Barack Obama to fail, has been picking fights with the leaders of the Republican Party, and recently suggested that the health-care reform called for by the current administration and championed by Senator Ted Kennedy will soon be re-named the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill".

The guy's an asshole, and he deserves either a.) a kick in the head, or b.) a one way ticket to San Francisco so the "people" he represents can make their opinions known.

[Zeitgeist]

This is what was said. There were no calls for prayers, and he doesn't want the country to fail. Also he points out the obvious duplicity of the critics.

I Want OBAMA to FAIL ! : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009

We can agree to disagree, whether you are liberal or conservative. But let us be honest first and foremost.

[RubySlippers]

I listened to his whole speech on C-SPAN and your taking this out of context. He want him to fail because he is violating key Conservative principles such as big government spending on various qustionable programs as he sees it. I don't totally disagree he may have flaws but Obama has proven if he signs the budget with the 9000 or so items of pork and earmarks he is no better than Bush and other presidents. He will be a liar to what he said.

If he wants to be taken seriously VETO it and demand no earmarks or he will veto any future bill then maybe conservatives and others can respect his mettle. I hope he does fail in some areas as well but for different reasons.

[OldSchoolGamer]

The truth is that neither the Left nor the Right have much to offer of value to solving the current economic situation.  What we're facing is an entirely different sort of animal from the business-cycle booms and busts of the postwar era.  Raising taxes on the rich will not solve the problem, nor will abasing ourselves before them. 

If economic recovery is what we want, what we need to do is to sever America's physical economy, which is in okay shape, from the financial economy, which is going off a cliff.  If we fail to do this, we're going to see a full-blown collapse of our physical economy, which will be as bad as the 1930s.  In fact, such an event would be worse than the 1930s, since at least in the Thirties we didn't have a huge overhang of debt at every level, and we had an abundance of natural resources rather than the scarcity we see today.  In 1935, obtaining more oil, more coal, more iron, more whatever was simply a matter of drilling holes in the ground.  Not so today.

In fact, as soon as we do manage to get the economy on the road to recovery, we're going to butt right back up against the oil shortage we saw last year.  And for all the talk of alternative energy, there's no viable substitute for oil in existence or in development.  What we really need to be spending stimulus money on is revitalizing our rail system, building fission reactors, and crash R&D into thermonuclear fusion and high-efficiency solar power.  No matter what we do at this point, we're looking at a substantial down-scaling of the American Way of Life, and the 2020s and 2030s are going to be much less unpleasant if we roll up our sleeves and get to work preparing rather than trying to "stimulate" ourselves back to a high-energy, cheap-credit, globalized past that is shortly no longer going to be an option.

[Oniya]

If economic recovery is what we want, what we need to do is to sever America's physical economy, which is in okay shape, from the financial economy, which is going off a cliff. 

Just for those of us who only took theoretical maths, could you give a quick rundown of what is physical economy as compared to financial?  I'm fairly sure I have a grasp on the latter, but the first is a term I'm not familiar with.

[HairyHeretic]

I had a listen to that speech there, and it doesn't seem that out of context to me. I also find it very amusing that he is saying liberalism is the cause of the current problems in America. Gee, I hadn't noticed the liberals in charge for the last 8 years or so. Nice of him to clarify that.

Oh wait .. they weren't.

Guess liberalism isn't to blame after all then.

[Zakharra]

  I listened to his speech. He wants Obama's policies to fail. Obama's liberal agenda which Rush feels is bad for the country. The past 8 years of 'Republican' rule was not a conservative one. They spent like liberals in nearly every way and Obama looks to be wanting to exceed that with one of his first major bills that will vastly expand the deficit. Obama's solution is the government spending money it does not have.  ???

[OldSchoolGamer]

Just for those of us who only took theoretical maths, could you give a quick rundown of what is physical economy as compared to financial?  I'm fairly sure I have a grasp on the latter, but the first is a term I'm not familiar with.

By "physical economy," I mean the real-world means of production and the infrastructure that sustains them: factories, farms, power plants, railroads and highways, communications hubs, etc.

An excellent example of the financial economy (that's all the dollars, most of which are pixellated, not even actual cash) dragging down the physical economy can be found in the inability of some farmers to plant crops this spring because they cannot get loans for the seeds.  We thus have fields, equipment, and men to run them, capable of producing a product that is in demand around the world (and in fact necessary to sustain human life!).  However, they cannot, because of a lack of money.  This should be one of the first issues addressed by any stimulus package.

[Oniya]

Thanks - that cleared things up a lot.  (Ironically, I spent part of our grocery money today to buy seeds for a veggie garden.  Go figure.)

[Cecily]

I guess the point of those who dislike Rush is that wishing that Obama's plans will fail is pretty close to wishing the country will fail, especially in a time like this. I'm a liberal, and even if the republicans got in instead of the liberals, I'd still not want them to fail - I might dislike their ideas, but I don't want them to fail and screw up the country. It's an incredibly childish thing to wish someone in an important position to fail, especially since Obama hasn't been elected for that long. : / He might dislike Obama's ideas, but that doesn't mean that he has to wants him to fail.

And the argument that liberals supposedly wanted Bush to fail is completely irrelevant. That reminds me of little children who say "But he started it!" Just because they did it doesn't mean okay for Rush or anyone else to do it. If he's going to say things like that he shouldn't try to justify it or make excuses, it's ridiculous.

[Zeitgeist]

To color the past 8 years as completely under Republican rule and policy is a bit disingenuous I think. It's more about more than just the party affiliation of the elected president. There are many to blame, both Republican, Democrat and all in between. The make up and agenda of the congress has as much say, and power in the direction of the country, never mind all of the state legislators.

It would be inaccurate to say we've tried it the Republican's way for eight years, it didn't work, and now there must be a significant change in the other direction. It isn't just a matter of him having been president for eight years. He had a lot of help mucking things up, from both sides of the aisle.

[Zakharra]

By "physical economy," I mean the real-world means of production and the infrastructure that sustains them: factories, farms, power plants, railroads and highways, communications hubs, etc.

An excellent example of the financial economy (that's all the dollars, most of which are pixellated, not even actual cash) dragging down the physical economy can be found in the inability of some farmers to plant crops this spring because they cannot get loans for the seeds.  We thus have fields, equipment, and men to run them, capable of producing a product that is in demand around the world (and in fact necessary to sustain human life!).  However, they cannot, because of a lack of money.  This should be one of the first issues addressed by any stimulus package.

Unfortunately, without money, the companies have nothing to pay their employees. The physical and financial are permanently tied together.  No one wilwl make good if there is no one to buy them and without money (finances) to pay the employees, the employees have no incentive to work and make goods.

[Zakharra]

 Rush clarified the point when he said he wants Obama's ideas to fail. Those who took him to mean that he (Rush) wants the country to fail, misread it. Whether unintentionally, or purposefully.  He doesn't want the country to fail, just the President's policies to fail.

[Mnemaxa]

Rush clarified the point when he said he wants Obama's ideas to fail. Those who took him to mean that he (Rush) wants the country to fail, misread it. Whether unintentionally, or purposefully.  He doesn't want the country to fail, just the President's policies to fail.

....which is maybe not exactly the same thing, but instead the same result? 

Maybe he should have thought his comments through a little more.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Unfortunately, without money, the companies have nothing to pay their employees. The physical and financial are permanently tied together.  No one wilwl make good if there is no one to buy them and without money (finances) to pay the employees, the employees have no incentive to work and make goods.

What I mean is write off all the debt that's never going to be paid anyway, issue a new currency, and get things moving again.  Make sure that industries critical to national security--like agriculture--function. 

As far as Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama's policies to fail, he'll likely get his wish...though in the end, I think he'll regret it.  If I could respond directly to him, I'd just hand him a copy of The Monkey's Paw and tell him to be careful what he wishes for.  Somehow I think once unemployment hits 15% and a few million more people are unemployed, the Rush mantra of "well, if we let the rich do whatever they want, we'll have paradise, be patient and do what the wealthy elite tell you, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet know what's best" isn't going to resonate very well with the public.  Rush may well find himself alongside Bush dodging flying footwear...

[Zakharra]

What I mean is write off all the debt that's never going to be paid anyway, issue a new currency, and get things moving again.  Make sure that industries critical to national security--like agriculture--function. 

As far as Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama's policies to fail, he'll likely get his wish...though in the end, I think he'll regret it.  If I could respond directly to him, I'd just hand him a copy of The Monkey's Paw and tell him to be careful what he wishes for.  Somehow I think once unemployment hits 15% and a few million more people are unemployed, the Rush mantra of "well, if we let the rich do whatever they want, we'll have paradise, be patient and do what the wealthy elite tell you, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet know what's best" isn't going to resonate very well with the public.  Rush may well find himself alongside Bush dodging flying footwear...

I doubt issuing a new currancy would help. It would have less backing it than what we have now. Writting off the bad debt is problematic at best. If debt is consistantly written off, doesn't that undermine the financial system since it proves that some companies  and millions of people can run up huge debts, only to see them vanish at the wave of a pen?

I'm sure he has read the book. The policies he isn't wanting to succeed inflict more governmental control on the nation as a whole and push oit much further to the left. A direction many do not want it to go. As far as I know, most of the population does not want the stimulus bill to be passed.

Is it worth the stimulus passing and working (which I highly doubt it would) only to have the nation  much more socialist and anti capitalist/free market( not a totally free market you understand, that's just anarchy)?

Taxing the rich at a higher level is not the way to pay for it. It punishes success and those earning money. Including large, medium and small business owners.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I doubt issuing a new currancy would help. It would have less backing it than what we have now. Writting off the bad debt is problematic at best. If debt is consistantly written off, doesn't that undermine the financial system since it proves that some companies  and millions of people can run up huge debts, only to see them vanish at the wave of a pen?

I agree this shouldn't become a habitual practice, but let's face it, most of the debt out there is never going to be repaid anyway.  One in eight homeowners are already underwater, and we've only begun to see the effects of the recession/depression.  Comparing the current situation to your average recession is like comparing Captain Trips to the garden-variety flu.  This bug is only just now beginning to spread...

Is it worth the stimulus passing and working (which I highly doubt it would) only to have the nation  much more socialist and anti capitalist/free market( not a totally free market you understand, that's just anarchy)?

Taxing the rich at a higher level is not the way to pay for it. It punishes success and those earning money. Including large, medium and small business owners.

Are the rich really adding a level of value to society anywhere near commensurate with how much money they're making?  Does some guy who pushes papers a couple hours a day between rounds of golf really add hundreds of millions of dollars of value to the world around him?  I don't think so, any more than someone who picks a certain string of numbers or places a lucky bet on the craps table.  American capitalism is now on the rocks precisely because income at the upper levels is no longer (at least in most cases) an accurate reflection of value added. It's a casino mentality.
[/quote]

[Zakharra]

I agree this shouldn't become a habitual practice, but let's face it, most of the debt out there is never going to be repaid anyway.  One in eight homeowners are already underwater, and we've only begun to see the effects of the recession/depression.  Comparing the current situation to your average recession is like comparing Captain Trips to the garden-variety flu.  This bug is only just now beginning to spread...

Are the rich really adding a level of value to society anywhere near commensurate with how much money they're making?  Does some guy who pushes papers a couple hours a day between rounds of golf really add hundreds of millions of dollars of value to the world around him?  I don't think so, any more than someone who picks a certain string of numbers or places a lucky bet on the craps table.  American capitalism is now on the rocks precisely because income at the upper levels is no longer (at least in most cases) an accurate reflection of value added. It's a casino mentality.

The home owners should have known better in taking such a huge risk. The majority of the defaults are on people that took out loans they never would have had one in the first place. If their debt is completely forgiven, their bad behavior  is being rewarded. There muct be some sort of punishment or most will fall into the same 'trap' later. After all, why should they worry if the government is going to bail them out?
What the government is offering is not a vaccine, but a type of poison.


Income tax wise the rich already pay far more than their share of the burden. Over 50% of the income tax burden is paid by the wealthiest 5% of people. Nearly 70% is paid by the top 10%. How people are paid is a task the companies and stockholders themselves need to take care of. Not the government.  Despite what people think of executives, it isn't an easy task to manage a multi-million/billion dollar company. It is a very stressful occupation.

[Oniya]

The home owners should have known better in taking such a huge risk.

It isn't always a 'huge risk'.  When my husband and I bought our first home, I was well-employed and we had a good stash of money in the bank.  Five years after that, I got pregnant, and lost my job, and then he lost his.  We tried to keep it together, paying as much as we could towards our mortgage - only to find out that the mortgage companies don't have to accept partial payments (they put the money towards our escrow or something), and even though we called ahead of time to say that we were going to be having trouble, they said they couldn't work out anything until we actually were having problems.  Then when that occurred, my husband got hold of one person who gave him something we could work with - only to be told by someone else that they a) couldn't do that and b) couldn't put him directly through to the person who said that they could.  Only after he started going through filling out e-forms for the less-favorable, not-quite-affordable alternative (he was given a choice between taking that option or starting foreclosure) was he told 'Oh, she was probably talking about this option - but since I've already started the paperwork on this, I can't offer it to you anymore.'

We got out of that house just before being foreclosed on and spent a number of years living in my sister's rental property until we got back on our feet.  I doubt we could manage anything that graceful in these times - even if the rental is still available, our current area housing market is not moving whatsoever.  Back then, we could pack and go - even if it was more stress than I'd wish on anyone. 

[Zakharra]

 *nod* I know, it isan't always a risk,. but a lot of people who did get homes would not have gotten one before. They were on mortgages that were schedualed to be raised at a set date. The people who couldn't make, or barely make the older payments should have known they wouldn't be able to make payments at a higher rate. The blame falls on both the companies for selling, the government for forcing the companies to do it and the people for living far above what they could afford.

[HairyHeretic]

The government for forcing for the companies to do it?

[Zakharra]

 Congress passed some laws more or less mandating that loan companies and banks give loans to people who would otherwise not get them. So everyone could own a home. Loans to people the bank knew were a high risk. It's no real surprise that when the bubble popped, the banks are left holding the bag and most of the blame.

[HairyHeretic]

That sounds a rather odd law to pass. When was it done, and who was pushing for it?

[Zakharra]

 It was done in the early 90's I believe, pushed by both Houses of Congress. I'm not too good at searching governmental laws/bills, so I might lack a quoteble reference atm. There are otheres here that can do a search better I think.

[HairyHeretic]

I'l admit to being somewhat cynical, but generally I see the laws being pushed through on behalf of some special interest group or other, frequently corporate rather than political.

[Zakharra]

 It served a political ideal and was pushed mainly by Democrates. But the entire Congress passed it, so...  /shrug

[HairyHeretic]

I'd say it also brought a fair bit of profit to the loan companies, and that's who I'd be looking at as the origin of the bill.

[Zakharra]

 Here are some links I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Effectiveness

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html