RSS

Category Archives: Economics

Is Rush a Billionaire?

06 May

rush smoking

By all reports, Rush Limbaugh, the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, lives in a 24,000-square-foot Florida seaside estate. He rides in a $450,000 car to the airport to ride in his $54 million jet.

What’s his net worth?

Known revenue includes:

$285 million salary and bonus for 2001 through 2008 ($35m bonus, salary of approximately $31.25m/year)

$400 million salary and bonus from 2009 through 2016 ($100m plus bonus – the exact figure was not disclosed, except for “nine digit bonus” – and $38m/year salary)

So, through his salary itself, he has earned $285 million for current work, $400 million for future. And that only covers back to 2001. Rush has been on the air since 1988. While he certainly earned less in his early days, it can be assumed his salary was significant. Additionally, Limbaugh himself controls 25 percent of the ad slots for each hour of his program, which represents ad dollars that never end up in anyone else’s coffers, which would be quite large, considering his self-estimated 20 million listeners each week.

Rush Limbaugh is close to, or just over the billionaire net worth mark. With at least $685 million, and advertising revenue joined with previous contracts which must be in the hundreds-of-millions range, Rush can be assumed an essential billionaire.

So, can Rush even begin to relate to what is going on in the economy? He is not a little guy. He is nowhere close to being a Joe six pack. Yet, millions of adoring listeners think he’s just like them. OK, ditto-heads, you’ve been duped. Rush Limbaugh is not like you or me. How many of you live in 24,000 square foot homes? Home many of you have cars worth $450,000? How many of you have a private $54 million dollar jet? How many of you make $38 million a year? The answer is clear, not many of you, if any of you at all.

Rush is wealthy enough that when he got caught red handed abusing prescription pain killers he paid no penalty. How many of you would have gotten the same treatment? He spent no time in jail.

When he lost his hearing, due to his drug abuse, he was able to afford the best doctors to perform implant surgery. How many of you can do the same?

He is not a regular guy. He’s your atypical rich Republican fat cat. And like most – if not all – atypical rich Republican fat cats, he doesn’t give a damn about you. The only rights he wants to protect are his own.

He doesn’t want the fairness doctrine reintroduced, not because of his so-called love for the Bill of Rights, but because he’d lose his gravy train.

He doesn’t want President Obama to raise taxes on the top 5% because he’s part of it. It has nothing to do with the nation’s economy; it has to do with his personal economy.

He wants President Obama to fail not out of a love for America’s prosperity; but out of love for Rush Limbaugh’s prosperity.

He defends AIG and the protection of the executive bonuses, because Rush Limbaugh received an obscene $400 million contract extension, coupled with a $100 million signing bonus at a time when Clear Channel Communications is laying off thousands of employees across the country. Rush is a self-inflated, self-promoting, self-indulging phony.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! It’s just Rush Limbaugh bloviating into his golden EIB microphone while Clear Channel Communications burns.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: ,

Did Reagan Really Cut Taxes?

05 May

ronald-reagan

During today’s bloviations, Rush, while supposedly giving a eulogy for Jack Kemp, attempted yet again to sell the country on the righteousness of the supply-side genius that was Ronald Reagan. He tried to promote the idea that Reagan’s cuts brought about untold economic prosperity, and literally drove the country out of the recession that had helped propel him into office. According to Rush, Reagan’s tax cuts were revolutionary, and helped create the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Rush, of course couldn’t just praise Reagan, he had to take the opportunity to attack President Obama, “My friends, read his books. Barack Obama’s primary objective is undoing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. Now why would that be? That’s all he’s doing, returning the nation’s wealth to its so-called rightful owners. He operates on the belief that every achiever in this country is a thief, that every achiever has stolen or has something that’s genuinely not his or hers — that they’ve come by it unfairly.” But wait, that’s not all, rush continued, “We’re just not going to allow it to happen. But I — there’s no question that he’s defining prosperity down. I mean, his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts. Now if his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts, I guess those are really big tent moderate ideas, huh? We know Obama is a left-wing radical. He takes a look at anything right-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

And in so defining President Obama, Rush defines himself with his own words: “We know Rush is a right-wing radical. He takes a look at anything left-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

Now for a little truth about Ronald Reagan’s “revolutionary” tax cuts; first, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes Ronald Reagan did cut taxes. Sort of. However, these wonderful, growth expanding, economic exploding tax cuts never fully took effect. You see, they were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years.

Second, part of the Reagan tax cut myth is that everyone never had it so good as they did under Reagan. However, the economy actually grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family – adjusted for inflation – rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

While President Reagan managed to ram his huge 1981 tax cut through a Democrat controlled Congress, he had to follow it with two large tax increases. Fact of the matter is, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. Yes, you heard that right, NO PEACETIME PRESIDENT HAS RAISED TAXES SO MUCH ON SO MANY PEOPLE!

The first two Reagan tax increases came in 1982. That year, he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 which raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. These increases, coming only a year after his “monumental” tax cut were needed because the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly over optimistic. Over all, the 1982 tax increases undid about a third of the 1981 cut; and truth be told, as a share of the Gross Domestic Product, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase. According to the United States Treasury Department, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the G.D.P., making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Listen carefully ditto-heads, because I want you to remember, Ronald Reagan oversaw the “LARGEST PEACETIME TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”.

President Reagan’s next tax increase was known as the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Reagan’s income tax cuts of 1981. This is a tax increase that lives on, because it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. Thanks to President Reagan, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. Once again ditto-heads, thanks to who? Come on, you can say it, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

According to 1980 Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent. The increase in the payroll tax share outweighed, or canceled out, any benefit from lowering of the income tax share paid.

But wait! We’re not done! The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of G.D.P. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion

OK, now wait just a darned minute! Reagan passed the historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, achieving in startling clarity his supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates

Well, not quite. The “historic” Tax Reform Act of 1986 in reality imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. OK ditto-heads, repeat after me, “THE LARGEST CORPORATE TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY”.

With the simple stroke of his pen, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

So, what does it all mean?

It means tax cuts during a recession do not work. They didn’t work for Ronald Reagan in 1981, and they certainly didn’t work for George W. Bush in 2001. Tax cuts during a recession coupled with increased federal spending really do not work. Reagan cut taxes and increased federal spending in order to fight, and win, the cold war. George W. Bush cut taxes and increased federal spending to fight the war on terror, and to fund his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So, what are the differences between Reagan and Bush? Reagan understood his tax cuts were hurting the economy, and did a 180 turn and increased taxes – in spite of what Rush, Hannity, et al claim – while George W. Bush plowed straight ahead off the cliff.

Did Ronald Reagan cut taxes? Yes he did. But then he raised them. Two things to remember about the Gipper and his tax cuts:

First, Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

Second, Ronald Reagan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

Once again, Rush proves that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

War on Poverty a Failure?

30 Apr

During his daily radio bombast yesterday, 29 April 2009, Rush Limbaugh, America’s self-proclaimed “truth detector”, who claims to have been certified as being right 99.9% of the time, claimed, “Not one government program has ever worked…the War on Poverty is a failure. The percent of poor people has not changed in this country”.

Once again Rush you’re wrong. The facts of the matter – according to the United States Department of Commerce – are that in 1959 there were almost 40 million Americans living in poverty, or 23% of the population. As of 2005 there was about 12.5% of the nation’s population living in poverty.

Now I don’t know how they teach percentages in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, but 12.5% is about half of 23%. I would have to say that’s a significant change in the percentage of poor people in America, don’t you think Rush?

Has the War on Poverty been won? Obviously not; but, to claim, “The War on Poverty is a failure, and that the percent of poor people has not changed in this country”. That’s a flat out lie. So, either you’re a liar, or an ignoramus. Which is it Rush?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 30, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , ,

Tea Parties Responsible for Market Recovery?

19 Apr

Just when I was beginning to wonder how curious it was that six weeks into a market recovery no one on the right had given any credit to President Obama, especially after continuously laying the blame at his feet for its seemingly endless downward plunge for the past 3 months; remember when Hannity, on opening his FOX  PAC program on 6 Mar 09, said, “And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of Obama’s Bear Market. Now, that’s what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week.” And he concluded, “According to Bloomberg News, the Dow has now dropped faster during the first six weeks of the Obama administration than any other administration in at least 90 years. But is that a surprise after weeks of talking down the economy?”

Well today opening her FOX PAC program Bulls and Bears hostess Brenda Buttner cleared up what is responsible for the upturn when she said, “Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?” Buttner finished, “After months on its back, the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government. Is that a coincidence?”

Now we all know why conservatives couldn’t give any credit to the President. They’ve been waiting for anything, and I do mean anything, else to explain it. It was the Tea Parties!

The next phase of this will occur on Monday, when it will begin with Rush, and then Hannity, Ingraham, O’Rielly, Beck, when they’ll all begin to echo that the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – as the Tea Parties were described by FOX PAC commentator Geraldo Rivera Thursday – are what’s really responsible for the new found confidence in the stock market.  It will all become crystal clear. The economy couldn’t possibly be responding positively to anything a democrat liberal could have done! It can only respond negatively to democrat efforts. If it is going to move upwards, it can only do so due to something happening on the conservative side. The Tea Parties! Aha! They spontaneously began on the GOP side!

Pay attention now as I describe how the conservative talk jocks will try to validate this claim: A group of village idiot types – we’ll call them Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – are attempting to claim that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – we’ll call them Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering.

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – arrives on the scene, and asks them why they’re claiming this.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – first say that credit couldn’t possibly be given to anyone with the middle name Hussein, but then grudgingly have to admit he didn’t give himself the name.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – then make some more outrageous claims (Hannity says that the economy couldn’t be rebounding from anything that someone who palls around with terrorists could have done; while O’Reilly claims that there’s no doubt attending a church of a left wing extremist would definitely cancel out anything positive a democrat president could do; and then Beck shouts that he turned him into a newt – though he later ‘got better’).

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – then talks the village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – through the ‘logic’ for checking that it – “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – you remember, the  Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering – and after some false turns and lots of dim stares, they all come to the following basic conclusions.

First, “Groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – the Tea Parties – burn (actually they combust). This one is fair enough, though the idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – suggest trying to actually burn the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – as way of testing this.

Second, Wood Burns. Hence “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – or Tea Parties – are made of wood. How do you check that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea parties – are made of wood? Try building a bridge out of it, Hannity suggests – but Bedevere – aka Rush – points out that you can also make bridges from stone.

Third, Wood Floats. Bedevere – aka Rush – gently leads them to this point, and asks them if they know anything else that floats.

Fourth, Ducks Float. The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – actually have a lot of trouble thinking of something else that floats – Beck shouts that really small pebbles float! But it is Arthur (Buttner), who has just arrived on the scene, who says: ‘A Duck!’ (Stunned amazement and dramatic music.)

Therefore… The logic goes: that if “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – weigh the same as a duck, then they’re responsible for the stock market recovering, and they can burn the president. So they put the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – on a set of scales with a duck, and wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, they weigh the same

At this point we cut to a commercial: Scene opens with an egg being held over a red hot frying pan, cue voice over: “This is your brain.”

Egg is broken and dropped into red hot frying pan begins to fry, cue voice over, “This is your brain on conservative talk radio; any questions?”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 19, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Taxing AIG Bonuses is not Unconstitutional

26 Mar

Recently Rush Limbaugh, and now his echoes, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, etc. have all taken up this mantra that Congress taxing the AIG bonuses is somehow “unconstitutional”.

Now I understand how such a mistake can happen, given the fact that Rush doesn’t know the difference between the Preamble to the Constitution and the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, but honestly folks the Constitution is a pretty straight forward document, and it pretty clearly spells out what Congress can and cannot do, particularly with regards to taxes.

Article I, Section 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Exactly how is it unconstitutional for the United States Congress to levy a tax on the bonus money given to executives at AIG when Article I, Section 8 makes it pretty clear that Congress has the “power to lay and collect taxes”? Answer is, “it’s not unconstitutional”. But wait, that’s not all.

The 16th Amendment states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

DOH! “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived”? Gee, that sounds like Congress can tax the living daylights out of not only these bonuses, but from whatever income it likes. Again it would appear that Congress has all the “constitutional” authority it needs to tax the AIG bonuses. Maybe Limbaugh and company should occasionally read the Constitution and then they’d know what is and what is not unconstitutional.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , ,

Rush Lied about GOTP Involvement in TARP

19 Mar

I was going to begin this entry saying that Rush, the titular head of the GOTP, had gotten it wrong, or perhaps he had misspoken, but let’s cut to the chase, he lied! During his daily ranting Rush tried to claim, that “not one Republican voted for this bailout. Remember way back in the fall, not one Republican voted for the TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] bailout?”

But one lie about the Republican participation wasn’t good enough for Jabba Da Rush, no, he later repeated the false claim, saying, “Not one Republican voted for it the first time around.”

Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, c’mon, truth is – which you know – many Republicans in both the House and Senate voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the bill authorizing the secretary of the Treasury to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program providing the much needed financial aid to banks and other financial institutions.

In fact Rushbo, 65 House Republicans later voted in favor of H.R. 3997, as well as 34 Senate Republicans voting later for H.R. 1424. But wait folks! That’s not all! There’s more! Within 48 hours – give or take a few hours – 91 House Republicans voted for that same bill. And then the former head of the GOTP (before Maha Rushdi) President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law. But remember loyal ditto heads, Rush, the “truth detector” with a self-proclaimed accuracy rate of 99.9% said, “not one Republican voted for this bailout.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 19, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Rush Wrong on Dodd Amendment

18 Mar

Today during his daily bloviating, Rush Limbaugh, the ad-hoc head of the Republican Tea Party (GOTP), falsely asserted that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) inserted an amendment into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act providing an “exemption from any limits on” contractual bonuses agreed to before February 11. In fact, Dodd’s amendment actually limited bonuses; it did not add “protection” for bonuses or “create a loophole” without which the bonuses could not be paid. Nor did it provide an “exemption from any limits” on bonuses agreed to before February 11.

During his broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, “These bonuses were exempted by Chris Dodd in the “porkulus” bill. Dodd’s own amendment, just to remind you, provides an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before February 11, 2009, and these are — meaning, exemption from any limits on them.

The “porkulus” bill has an executive compensation pay limit, as you know. We’re limiting executive pay. Chris Dodd put in his own bill — his own amendment — that exempts bonuses from this limitation. And he’s out there now saying tax them at 90 percent. These people are the biggest frauds, artists of deceit — they all are acting. Every damned one of them knew that this was coming. They are the architects of this.”

Once again the self-proclaimed “truth meter” couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. But wait, he is trying, and he’s making it up as he goes along, or he’s just too lazy to check on all the facts. Personally, I think he’s just making it all up.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 18, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , ,

No Businessmen in Obama Cabinet, Not One, Oh Really?

16 Mar

According to the Head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, “There is not a single businessman in the Obama Administration…you won’t find a single one, not a single businessman advising the President.” Oh really? Not a single one El Rushbo?

How about Defense Secretary, Robert Gates? Gates has been a member of the board of trustees of Fidelity Investments, and on the board of directors for NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker international, Inc., Parker Drilling Company and Science Applications International Corporation. Gee, I don’t know Rush, sounds like business experience to me.

And then there’s Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. What’s his business background you ask? Oh, nothing much really. Prior to serving as the head of New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development he was the managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company for Federal housing Administration lending and affordable housing investments. I’m no expert Rush, but that sounds a lot like a businessman to me.

Wait, there’s more. Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior. Salazar’s business experience includes having served as a partner in his family’s farm, El Rancho Salazar. Salazar and his wife have also owned and operated small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and radio stations in Pueblo and Denver, Colorado.

And last, but certainly not least, is White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, but she’s not really a businessman, she’s a businesswoman. Jarrett served as the CEO of the Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company, and she also served as a member of the board of the Chicago Stock Exchange from 2000-2007, including serving as its chairman from 2004-2007.

Not a single one? Just barely digging I found four. C’mon all seeing, all knowing, all lying Maha Rushdi you’ll have to do better than this. Wait. I take that back. No you won’t. You’re ditto-heads will never know you’re lying because they never look anything up for themselves.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 16, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , ,

Clinton Had Best Economy

13 Mar

In the past 50 days, if you listen to Rush, Hannity, et. al, the economy has been destroyed by President Obama and his wild, left-wing, radical socialist ideas! And these same pundits will try to claim that the country’s best economy was under President Reagan. What is the basis for Rush, Hannity’s, everyone else from the right-wings, assessment? The stock market!

However, if anyone would bother to actually check the facts, the best, longest sustained economic growth in the past 100+ years was not under Reagan, but under President Clinton. Not during a time of tax cuts, and incentives for the most wealthy among us, but at a time of “wild, left-wing, radical socialist ideas!”

Using the stock market as our basis of facts, the Dow gained 8,500 points during the Clinton years, as compared to 1,500 under Reagan. One of the worse drops ever in the Dow came under George W. Bush, when the Dow slid 4,000 points. However, by the time Bush left office the Dow had posted a 3,000 point gain during his presidency.

NASDAQ gained a mere 350 points under Reagan, but soared more than 4,000 points under Clinton. By the end of the Bush presidency it had plummeted 2,200 points; the only time in the past 60 years when it had ended lower than it started during a presidency.

The S&P 500 gained 300 points during Reagan’s time in office. Under Clinton it shot up 1,000 points, but once again under Bush it posted basically no true gain, the first time since the Nixon/Ford presidency.

But wait a minute! Bush had 9-11, and that screwed up the economy! That could have been used as an excuse, but, unfortunately the markets were already plunging before the attack. Now certainly 9-11 helped shove the markets further into the hole, but just as soon as the economy started to right itself, what did “W” do? Invaded Iraq. War, in spite of the right-wing assertions to the contrary, doesn’t truly aid the economy, it tends to stagnate it, then depress it, and finally there is growth afterwards.  Case in point; the NASDAQ makes a sharp climb in 2003, rising more than 1,000 points, until Bush decides to invade Iraq. The result? Initially, the NASDAQ takes a hit, and then only slowly recovers.

More evidence you say? During the Vietnam War the nation’s economy made slow to almost no growth. FDR’s policies took the DOW from 42.80 in 1932 to 187.17, but then there is a 90 point drop from 1936 to 1938. The reason you ask? The rumblings of another war in Europe, beginning with the start of Hitler’s aggressive moves into the Rhineland, and coupled with the start of the Spanish Civil War. The Dow climbs again, back to around 140, until? The attack on Pearl Harbor! The Dow declines to around 90, until in early 1942 it climbs back to around the 140 to 150 mark. Why? Because the United States begins to win against the Japanese, ever heard of the Battle of Midway? But there isn’t this huge boom the right-wing always suggests. The boom out of the Great Depression had already occurred.

Under Truman the Dow rises to around 250, and is climbing when Eisenhower is elected. It continues to rise until the war in Vietnam slows the economy under LBJ and Nixon.

The Dow takes a hit right around 1970. Any guesses why? Because of self-destruction of the Republican Presidency, brought on by the bungled break in of the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Building, and coupled with the inevitable post-war recession from the ending of the Vietnam War. Thanks Dick.

The markets (Dow, S&P 500 and NASDAQ) make a brief rally under Ford, and even under Carter, but then begin to dip and eventually stagnates at the end of Carter’s term. Why? The Iran Hostage Crisis, along with soaring oil prices, and lukewarm leadership.

Finally it begins a sharp climb under Reagan rising more than 1,500 points, only to plunge when George Bush is elected, with little growth during his four years. Remember Desert Storm? Somalia? More lukewarm leadership?

Under Clinton the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P 500 rocket up, only to be stagnated by the Bush administration. Gee, I don’t know, maybe 9-11, invading Iraq, torturing prisoners, usurping the Bill of Rights?

There are only two Presidents in the past 60 years who have managed to place the economy into a truly vegetative state, Carter and George W. Bush. Both will probably go down in history as the most inept, most bungling presidents ever.

One more point about the current drop – the one President Obama inherited from “W”. The market has had a dip after every presidential election for at least the last 60 years, both republican and democrat. The current plunge began during the summer of 2007, under the Bush Administration.

So, what does this all mean? Look, I’m just an average “Joe” American, a soldier turned school teacher by trade, but I can read charts, and I can look into what has happened historically, and from what I’ve read, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingram, Palin, McCain, etc., are all a bunch of liars. The economy has always shown the most growth during peace time. It has shown the most growth when the taxes were not cut, but increased on the wealthiest class. Sorry Hannity, but facts are facts, our nation’s economy skyrocketed under Clinton, with all of his so-called horrible tax increases, the same increase that President Obama is looking to put back into place. Why don’t you take the time to do some research next time?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 13, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , ,

Newer posts →