Anyone read Limbaugh Op Ed in the WSJ

The Coffee Shop
1

Lets not use this thread to bash Limbaugh…but I thought he made some concessions to the left…So far, with the new bill we have thrown over $2 Trillion plus at the problems in just a few short months. Why can’t we do a stimulas bill that is 56% (Obama Voters) infrastructure and pork and 44% (McCain Voters) accross the board tax cuts? What the hell, whats another $200 billion in tax cuts at this point, its all gonna be a rounding error by the time we are done spending the money. Why not give a little to the other half of the country in the spirit of bi-partisenship? This could be a unifyier, right? Why don’t we set aside politics? As the Op Ed points out, isn’t American made up of Democrats, Republicans and independents?

At the end of the day we really don’t know if the Keynesians are right or the supply siders are right in this climate, why not do both? Imagine both sides working together…

2

I’d guess that this would be a waste of time, just look at what has transpired here, you miss a ball you get crucified, no matter what he does there are a demographic that would cut their own arms off before they acknowledged it was a positive move and I’m not sure that he thinks he needs to cater to them. He has a mandate, people clearly did not vote for him for a continuation of Bush / McCain / Conservative / Neocon policies and at no time during the past 8 years were any concessions made to the left so why should he now.

It was fine for the right when the shoe was on the other foot to say we will not and do not need to concede any concessions to the left but now they are getting steam rolled and realise that actually the consequence of these concessions is they will never be able to get them back, largely because turkeys dont vote for Xmas and if he starts providing healthcare for all, no one is going to vote to take it away (certainly not those benefitting from it) they think he should accomadate their beliefs. There is no way IMO that this is going to happen, and I question why should it. For the last 8 years Bush / Cheney did not give a shit what anyone thought, why should he? are you suggesting he should be a bigger and better man than they?

3

I’ll go look for Rush’s piece…

But…didn’t the Dems remove much of the stuff the Republicans wanted from the bill…the sod for the mall, the birth control piece…plus they have already offered up a large amount of tax cuts per Republican wishes, and Obama has been consistently trying to involve the Republicans…and they still voted as a bloc, entirely against the bill? I don’t think there’s anything more to be said and done. The Republicans were given their chance on this, they came to the table and were listened to, changes were made, and it clearly didn’t make a difference. Time to move on.

4

Andrew,

Bush caved on so many things for the left to keep the war going…he caved on education (NCLB was paraded around by none other than Kennedy)…he caved on medication beneifts…he caved on immigration (but was stopped). The growth in spending was not just for the war. Lets use some intellectual honesty here.

And your right, they can do whatever they want, they have the votes. But there was no conservative input, this was a Democratic led bill, period. The only reason some stuff was eliminated was because a few people read the bill and let their congressman know they were not happy…

And yes, I have suggesting Obama be a better man…someone has to start. I didn’t vote for him but he is my President. I will support him when I think he is doing the right things…He is on the clock.

5

Peter,

There is a difference is asking to meet and hearing input and then actually putting some of there ideas in the plan…no significant changes were made, just the stuff that was ridiculus. Look, Obama won, he gets to drive policy. All I am suggesting is that he try to lead all of the people, not just the left side. He wants to be the guy who leads change…he even sounded like Reagan the other day talking about the “people” are the ones that make things happen; but so far the bill is all about govt controlling the spending.

Just a thought…

6

My feeling is that Obama is a tough spot on this. He’s got Pelosi and the hard-left on one side, and a minority Republican party on the other. Despite what is said around here, I do think Obama is more of a centrist, and I do think he’s willing to work with Republicans. But, Boehner’s comments have been pretty negative from the start, Mitch McConnell at least is more positive. Yeah, the concessions weren’t huge, but then, $50 million for sod and $200 million for contraceptives wasn’t much when the total bill was $825 billion, either. The republicans chose to make an issue of that stuff, and they got it removed. They also got 300+ billion in tax cuts, from the get-go. They certainly don’t have any moral highground to oppose spending when $700 billion was handed out in tarp, and hundreds of billions more to AIG and banks. The 177-0 vote against pretty much says they aren’t interested in working together. Why should the Dems even bother?

7

Link to the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
.

8

I read the article and it’s clear that Rush doesn’t have a great grasp of economics. Unfortunately, the “little bit of both approach” would be about as effective as doing nothing, yet still cost close to a trillion dollars.

Honestly, I am in total belief right now that fiscal stimulus is what we need and would prefer that fiscal stimulus occupy the vast majority or the entirety of the bill. However, I would rather do nothing than a watered down compromise, and it’s not because I am unwilling to compromise politcally, I would just rather the money not get wasted if it was going to be ineffective.

You can’t just look at “supply side” tax cuts in a bubble, you need to look at where tax levels currently are and where they could reasonably cut to. 30 or 40 years ago when the marginal tax rate was significantly higher than it is now, a significant cut at the top of the tax system was likely to lead to increased reinvestment. However, the effect of supply side tax cuts have become greatly water down as the top marginal rate has fallen, to the point that the supply side cuts of the past few decades failed to increase revenue in proportion to the size of the cut (defenders of these cuts will say that revenue increased, but that’s only because the economy is always growing so of course revenue increased, what’s important is that it didn’t increase in proportion to the size of the cut).

Furthermore, if the gov’t spends the money via fiscal stimulus, we can ensure the money gets spent and at least begins to work its way through the economy. If given in tax cuts, there is no way to ensure that the money doesn’t just get sat on (which the data says is basically what happened with those rebate checks we all got last spring).

9

“They also got 300+ billion in tax cuts, from the get-go.”

Some Republicans (who aren’t any better than Democrats at using concepts properly) may think they got $300 billion in tax cuts, but as discussed in a previous thread, a lot of those “tax cuts” aren’t tax cuts.

10

Using your logic, we should increase taxes so that the govt can take the money and spend it…because they know how to spend it more wisely. Do you really believe this? As far as waste, the more I read what they want to spend money on the more I learning what a waste this package is…and it is scary to me that so many people like you feel good about an bankrupt, over leveraged society wanting to go more in debt to solve our economic issues. You do know that with interest we are talking 3-4 Trillion dollars between the Fed and these spending bills. And to suggest that we cannot “risk” another $200B in tax cuts to the people that actually pay the bill is really unbelievable.

11

Using your logic, we should increase taxes so that the govt can take the money and spend it…because they know how to spend it more wisely.

No, using my logic the goal of any tax policy is to generate as much revenue as possible. If the tax rate were 0%, gov’t revenue would be $0 as they weren’t taking in any money. If the tax rate were 100% then gov’t revenue would also be $0 as if people lost 100% of their income to taxes there would be no incentive to work. So the goal is to find where between 0% and 100% if the optimal rate.

Do you really believe this?

No, I don’t believe this as you have described it. But yes, I do believe that looking at tax cuts in a bubble is foolish. You need to look at where they currently are, where they could be cut to, what effect this could have on reinvestment and what effect this would have on gov’t revenue.

As far as waste, the more I read what they want to spend money on the more I learning what a waste this package is…and it is scary to me that so many people like you feel good about an bankrupt, over leveraged society wanting to go more in debt to solve our economic issues.

Again, you are making up what I supposedly feel. I don’t like anything about this, but it’s the best option available IMHO. We have no monetary policy options left, that leaves fiscal policy. We’ve been cutting taxes for the past 8 years or so, plus those rebates last spring and the data shows that there hasn’t been a proportional increase in spending, reinvesment etc. I don’t love fiscal stimulus, but it’s pretty much the only option we haven’t tried. And if it fails like the options have, well at least we get some new bridges and roads out of this!

You do know that with interest we are talking 3-4 Trillion dollars between the Fed and these spending bills. And to suggest that we cannot “risk” another $200B in tax cuts to the people that actually pay the bill is really unbelievable.

Yes, I do know that. It’s not so much the idea of “risking” 200B on tax cuts, I just think it’s wasteful and would serve the country better as fiscal stimulus.

12

I read the article and it’s clear that Rush doesn’t have a great grasp of economics anything except making money.
Fixed it for you.

13

HAHA, thanks!

14

An interesting read (for anyone interested) related to my own comments in this thread about having to look at tax cuts in relation to the economic climate and not just looking at tax cuts in a bubble.

http://www.slate.com/id/2211159/

15

“My feeling is that Obama is a tough spot on this.”

Hell no he’s not. He is in a prime and wonderful spot. Everything started falling apart before he came into office. In 4 years this cycle will ride or start to ride out. Next election things will be better and he will get the credit. Bush gets the blame and he gets to clean it up. Perfect.

16

Obama is in a tough spot on this. It is his package and when it fails he owns it. As Dick Morris said last night, if he acts negative the economy gets scared and continues to tank. If he acts positive and things stay negative anyway, he loses credibility. The GOP has played this hand well. Let’s see if it works for them.

17

“My feeling is that Obama is a tough spot on this.”

Hell no he’s not. He is in a prime and wonderful spot. Everything started falling apart before he came into office. In 4 years this cycle will ride or start to ride out. Next election things will be better and he will get the credit. Bush gets the blame and he gets to clean it up. Perfect.

I thought the same thing for a while but I am not sure because of the magnitude of the previous administrations ineptitude. 2 wars, a housing market shot, wall street and the banks struggling, the big 3 almost gone. This is different then any other time in recent history. I hope you are right though because a recovery helps everyone.

18

Good plan except for the assumption that things will be better by the next election.

19

The best analogy I read is that in this the GOP is nothing but a bystander. Basically they are a basketball team up 1 point with no time left on the clock and the other team (the democrats) are shooting 2 free throws.

If the democrats make them, they win the game (and the next election). If they miss them, they lose the game (and the next election). Whether republicans support the democrats or not is basically irrelevant to what the final outcome will be.

20

As Dick Morris said last night,

You might want to reconsider your argument if DM is your benchmark for prognostication.