Comments on: Rush Limbaugh Proposes $540 Billion Corporate Welfare Package

By: Relugus

Relugus — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:59:23 +0000

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.

By: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » The Borg Obama vs. Cardassian Republicans

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:56:09 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Brian Kalbfus

Brian Kalbfus — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:19:09 +0000

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.

By: Ray Mathews

Ray Mathews — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:38:01 +0000

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!

By: tfr

tfr — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:43:48 +0000

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?

By: s.king

s.king — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:32:41 +0000

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.

By: s.king

s.king — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:22:59 +0000

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.

By: murcanman

murcanman — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:13:07 +0000

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.

By: islander2

islander2 — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:17:06 +0000

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?).

By: Lex Luthor

Lex Luthor — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:11:36 +0000

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!

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:02:07 +0000

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.

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:57:40 +0000

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

By: Billy Bob

Billy Bob — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:35:22 +0000

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.

By: mark

mark — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:28:45 +0000

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?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:08:35 +0000

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.