Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.”     Ronald Reagan

January 26, 2009

Rush Limbaugh Proposes $540 Billion Corporate Welfare Package

by Stephen Gordon

rushtime Move over McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman.  We’ve now got the Limbaugh-Obama Bipartisan Economic Recovery Package (AKA LOBERP, pronounced like “low burp”).  Here’s the description provided over at The Next Right:

Mine is a genuine compromise.  So let’s look at how the vote came out, shall we?  Fifty-three percent of voters in this country — we’ll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans — voted for Obama.  Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos.  Let’s give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let’s say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain.  As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats.  The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me.

Let’s take a quick look at what really happens when the Doctor of Democracy and the Messiah decide to fiscally copulate.  Either Limbaugh is actually dumb enough to believe that Congress will actually deliver that $460 billion is returned to our own wallets, or he is nefarious enough to ensure that the tax cuts would go where he directs.  Of course, there would be no conflict-of-interest for someone to be holding the strings to a $460 billion government purse while also collecting advertising revenue for his radio program.

Then of course, by proposing this plan, we now have evidence that Limbaugh is endorsing a $540 billion stimulus package and he trusts President Obama and the Democrats to define (so long as it is infrastructure related) how it will be spent.

One might think that a self-described fiscal conservative would have the testicular fortitude to say ALL federal bailouts are bad.  He could have said something along the lines of “zero dollars for increased government spending.”  “Not one dime for corporate welfare” would have been acceptable, too.  He could have at least spoken out against deficit spending.  Instead of arguing on principle, he decided to give President Obama and the Dems $540 billion dollars out of wallets — and the wallets of our children and our grandchildren.

Rush Limbaugh currently wants control over 54 percent of this booty in the latest episode of the federal spending orgy.  He’s joined with the mainstream media and the Democrats who think that bailouts are sexy.  Rush, you can voluntarily give Obama as much money as you like out of your wallet.  Convince your ditto-heads to mail in the rest of the trillion bucks. Don’t even think about playing grab ass with my wallet, though.

UPDATE for the ditto heads: Rush Limbaugh spews erroneous conclusions, crap and conjecture on a daily basis. He calls it “entertainment.” I thought I’d give it a shot, too. And what better target could be found for some specious speculation than el Rushbo himself?

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/01/26/rush-limbaugh-proposes-540-corporate-welfare-package/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

29 Comments

  1. Rush is a hypocritical fat slob who spent the last 8 years bloviating for Bush.

    Remember the oxycontin arrest? Enough said?

    Comment by SaraLee — January 26, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
  2. You are simply demonstrably wrong. Rush may reference to cutting corporate taxes. The United States has the highest corporate taxes in the world. It would help if you look up what Rush says instead of making soup-brain allegations.

    Comment by Drew — January 26, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
  3. Drew,

    If you took the time to pull the freaking dittos off your head you might understand what many Americans intuitively grok: the problem is spending.

    Control spending and you fix deficits, debt and can reduce taxes at the same time.

    It seems you’ve been drinking the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid.

    Comment by SaraLee — January 26, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
  4. Limbaugh lacks the discipline to control his weight, so why would anyone believe he has the discipline it takes to arrive at balanced decisions?

    Comment by abonabi — January 26, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
  5. It is amazing how Obama wins by over 7 points and the conservatives consider that a slim victory, meanwhile Proposition 8 passes by only 4 points and the conservatives label this an “overwhelming mandate from the voters”. Whither reality?

    Comment by Cal — January 26, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
  6. Al Franken was right. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

    Comment by Martin Ohns — January 26, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
  7. This is great, the people who don’t listen to Rush no his plan better than the people who do listen to him.

    Boy, I wish i was a liberal so I could collect food stamps for being so dumb.

    Comment by Jonathon — January 26, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
  8. Some day Rush is going to pass on from a heart attack and Americans who hate arrogance will sigh with relief. He is a spewer of hate, a divider and in the words of Lindsay Ghram a whiner and a poor loser to boot. If his philosophy is right why didn’t it work after 8 horrible years?

    I wish Barrak had given this guy the Sarah Palin treatment instead of mentioning him directly. There are some gifts the extreme right gives America that you just smile inside about because you know Americans understand, – they get it, (most of us). Leave these Rovians untouched because they are truly untouchable and will eventualy sink and drown in thier own swill.

    Signed, Disgusted

    Comment by jon — January 26, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
  9. Evidentally, no one here understands that one of Rush’s principles of exposition is called “Demonstrating the absurd by being absurd”. He isn’t seriously suggesting what he says. He’s demonstrating how stupid and absurd the Democrat’s ideas are by proposing someething equally absurd. You people really need to think a little more. But then that was the whole point, demonstrating that no one of the Democrat’s side actually thinks…

    Comment by Peter Hale — January 26, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
  10. Rush is a jackass.

    Comment by Bruce — January 26, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
  11. So you say “Rush is going to pass on from a heart attack and Americans who hate arrogance will sigh with relief.”

    In the very next sentence you accuse him of being “a spewer of hate.”

    Right off the bat, it sounds like you’ve got a seriously conflicted psyche. Happiness at another’s demise is not exactly the sign of a mature person.

    Next, you asked “If his philosophy is right why didn’t it work after 8 horrible years?”

    The answer is because his Conservative philosophy was NOT embraced, in many cases, by the Republican Party. The Republican Party is a lost, aimless group right now, but do NOT underestimate the truly *Conservative* base of this country.

    Comment by Jim — January 26, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
  12. what a fat slob sack of feces

    Comment by joe — January 26, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
  13. Spending leads to more jobs.
    Saving leads to larger bank account.

    What to do?

    Why not spend it all, set a cap and make everyone a stock holder?

    1 million people with and extra $100 in their pocket will likely buy more products, whereas 1 person with $100 million in his pocket after expenses is unlikely to spend it all.

    Remember this, when you kick the bucket you can’t take any of it with you, so why not spend it all.

    Comment by really — January 26, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
  14. Why not spend it all, set a cap and make everyone a stock holder?

    You mean you wish to take my money from me, against my will, and replace it with a worthless piece of paper which gives me some minor amount of ownership in a company which can’t even succeed on its own?

    Comment by Stephen Gordon — January 26, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
  15. 53%-46% is not a 7% difference, it is only 3.5% because if 3.5 percent changed their vote then the vote total would have read 49.5 to 49.5. and people, please remember this…Rush Limbaurgh is an entertainer and last time I looked he wasn’t running for any office.

    Comment by Bernie — January 26, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
  16. I did a double take when Obama mentioned Rush by name the other day, “can’t listen to him and expect to get anything done…”…then it came into context…When a cool mother fucker like Barry calls you out (by name) – it means you’ve overextended yourself into some serious shit, I mean it’s over for Rush. He can’t hide anymore. I want to hear it from everyone, what does he have to offer??? There’s no way out, for him. Obama backed him into the corner. Door closed, lights off. This isn’t the 90′s. Time is not in Limbaugh’s favor, he just made himself obsolete. After this, what else is there?

    Comment by mark — January 26, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
  17. Dudes, Rush was OBVIOUSLY joking. This proposal is just plain silly. Rush is illustrating absurdity with absurdity. Are you that dense?

    And no I don’t like Rush. I’m one of the 1% he called a wacko. But don’t be idiots.

    Comment by Billy Bob — January 26, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
  18. I suppose you read a Modest Proposal and decided that Swift really wanted people to eat their children too… Its satire and thats all. He pioneered the line of argument seen here. He takes a detail and then takes certain parts of it and inserts absurdity and then argues for or against the absurdity he brought into the argument. He has stated many times that the last administration was NOT conservative… Nobody who spends like a drunkin sailor like bush did can be called conservative fiscally. He’s just conservative morally with his ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells, and other such foolish backwards ideas. Rush is brilliant on the radio and brings up many good ideas and thoughts. It just takes half a brain to read between the lines of his humor. Of course everyone who hates him prolly never listened to him so its a moot point i guess

    Comment by Craig — January 26, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
  19. I dunno. I’ve heard Rush defend really bad Republican spending bills (or programs, such as NCLB) time after time after time again.

    When Dems spend, they are the devil. When Repubs spend even more, they are angels. He did this from the Clinton administration (with few exceptions, like when he offered some token criticism to “read my lips”) to the McCain campaign (where he also offered token lip service opposition and then supported McCain).

    Rush is only a fiscal conservative when it is convenient for his ratings, IMO.

    Comment by Stephen Gordon — January 26, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
  20. Well the economic crisis will control the spending eh? Somehow I just don’t see how that will fix the problem. And spending 1 trillion to control spending? Speak of Oxymoronic!

    Comment by Lex Luthor — January 26, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
  21. Rush was definitely joking, but a Jonathan Swift he is not. Just under the surface of his attempted humor lies what I’m sure he considers to be his unassailable conservative logic. And while it is certainly palpable – as say, pus to a boil – it has little, if anything, to do with truth or reality.

    The fact that his supporters continue to trumpet his ‘half of Americans pay no income tax’ fraud shows the depth and breadth of his hold on the, uh, minds of listeners. Of course, that particular bit of fraud has been debunked countless times (remember payroll tax, Rush?).

    Comment by islander2 — January 26, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
  22. Drew, The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate on paper only. The reality is much different, after loopholes, credits, and deductions. Conservatives continue to spout this misleading statement, even though it’s been discredited.

    Comment by murcanman — January 26, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
  23. Though I am a liberal and disagree with most of what he says, I have enjoyed listening to Rush going back to the late ’80′s in Sacramento. I still listen to him every chance I get. With have his brain tied behind he back, he challenge any leftist pinko commie, fem-nazi, psycho-babblers, environmental wackos NOT to call him. He is foremost an entertainer, and excellent at pulling legs and agitating. He can convince his audience that it takes 80 years for a redwood tree to grow to be 800 years old. He though he may not admit it now, he is or was for a woman’s right to choose. Though Rush would wish the woman would choose not to have an abortion.

    Comment by s.king — January 27, 2009 @ 5:22 am
  24. Though I am a liberal and disagree with most of what he says, I have enjoyed listening to Rush going back to the late ’80′s in Sacramento. I still listen to him every chance I get. With half his brain tied behind he back, he challenge any leftist pinko commie, fem-nazi, psycho-babblers, environmental wackos NOT to call him. He is foremost an entertainer, and excellent at pulling legs and agitating. He can convince his audience that it takes 80 years for a redwood tree to grow to be 800 years old. He, though he may not admit it now, he is or was for a woman’s right to choose. Though Rush would wish the woman would choose not to have an abortion.

    Comment by s.king — January 27, 2009 @ 5:32 am
  25. Wow, I can’t believe Limbaugh still draws this size crowd after all the hypocritical BS he’s pulled over the years. It’s all for RATINGS – you folks do realize that, right?

    Comment by tfr — January 27, 2009 @ 8:43 am
  26. Want to see a proposal that will eliminate the socsec deficit AND simultaneously give millions of citizens extra (over and above socsec) in retirement income yearly?
    I call this plan the REVENUE FUND.
    Who pays for it? WE DO! The American people.
    Cost? Invest $1 or more per wee depending on what you can afford.
    RESULT?
    >BILLIONS to SocSec every year
    > Retirement income from $5000 to $50,000 awards every month.
    >Seniors have more opportunities to get these awards
    >Even non-citizens will support our SocSec program.
    INTERESTED? Request my 7-page proposal and spread sheet on Where The Invested $$ Go.
    Time’s awastin’. We CAN eliminate the SocSec Deficit!

    Comment by Ray Mathews — January 27, 2009 @ 11:38 am
  27. They are going to spend $1 trillion on this and are trying to make a “compromise” and be “bipartisan”. If we have the ability to borrow for this amount and are already going to do it, I think a true compromise would be appropriate. Maybe it can settle this dispute on what really stimulates the economy once and for all. Think of Elijah and the Prophets of Baal.

    I think Rush made much emphasis that he is, in fact, not joking with this one. He also said he doesn’t expect anyone to run with it, though. Also, I remember he was tying the amounts to the election results. So, that would be 540 billion for Obama’s philosophy and 460 billion for conservative philosophy.

    Comment by Brian Kalbfus — January 27, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
  28. [...] effort and energy talking about tax cuts — as opposed to talking about spending cuts.  As the Rush Limbaugh plan suggests, they would be perfectly happy to increase the amount of federal debt if and only if the [...]

    Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » The Borg Obama vs. Cardassian Republicans — January 30, 2009 @ 11:56 am
  29. The Pentagon “loses” about $3 trillion taxpayers dollars and Rush utters not a word. Bush wastes trillions on the Iraq war and Rush says nothing.

    Eisenhower warned Americans that the Pentagon would greedily steal taxpayers money for itself if given the chance.

    Thanks to right-wing buffoons like Limbaugh, the “Spentagon” has been able to sponge off obscene amounts from the taxpayer, as no politician will dare to point out that US Defence spending is at an absurd and fiscally irresponsible level.

    Comment by Relugus — February 15, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML