RSS

Tag Archives: Economics

Second Bill of Rights?

In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined what he considered to be the nation’s next great mission, the guaranteeing of economic rights for American citizens, but then again he was a socialist, right?

“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

“As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

“Among these are:

“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

“The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

“The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

“The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

“The right of every family to a decent home;

“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

“The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

“The right to a good education.

“All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

“For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

What happened to this mission?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 14, 2010 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , ,

They’re going to have access to our bank accounts?

Today, Thursday, 27 Aug 09, Rush Limbaugh told a listener that President Obama’s Administration was going to order the IRS to make banks across the country turn over your bank account numbers to that agency. Rush? How much Oxycontin are you taking each day? More importantly, how much Oxycontin are your listeners taking each day?

ap_Rush_Limbaugh_090129_mn

Limbaugh said, “If this bill passes they’re going to have access to your bank account. They’re going to have digital, on-line access to your bank account.

“There are hideous things in the legislation.

“They’ll order every bank to turn over every account number to the IRS and they’re going to be able to go in, and if you don’t pay they’re going to debit your account for you.”

Yeah OK. Whatever.

Nowhere in the Health Care legislation does it give authority to anyone to have access to anyone’s bank accounts. This is a bald faced lie, pure and simple.

Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed “truth meter” wouldn’t know a real truthful fact if it walked up and slapped the cigar right out of his face.

Sadly our country lost a true American yesterday when Senator Edward Kennedy passed away, and even more sad, we’re still stuck with the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 27, 2009 in Lunatics

 

Tags: , , , ,

Is Rush Limbaugh a Racist?

limbaugh debate

If you talk about President Obama wanting to enforce reparations by increasing the food stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and expanding the welfare state, you just might be a racist.

On Monday morning, during his daily blow fest, Rush Limbaugh attempted to articulate what the “true” economic objectives of the Obama Administration were.

Rush said, “This is the objective. The objective is unemployment; the objective is more food stamp benefits; the objective is more unemployment benefits; the objective is an expanding welfare state; the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return it to the nation’s rightful owners.

“Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.”

Think reparations?

What reparations are we talking about paying here Rush? Reparations to Japanese-Americans held unconstitutionally during World War II? Can’t be. The U.S. Government paid reparations to those families to the tune of $1.6 billion in 1988.

So, to whom are you referring Rushbo?

Must be the families of former slaves? Don’t know about you Rush; but that sound like a racist statement to me.

If it walks like it’s wearing a white sheet; and it talks like it’s wearing a white sheet, it’s wearing a white sheet. No question about it Rush. You’re a racist

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 13, 2009 in Lunatics

 

Tags: , , ,

Is Rush a Billionaire?

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?

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?

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: , ,

Taxing AIG Bonuses is not Unconstitutional

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

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

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?

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: , , ,