The 2009 Obama/Limbaugh Economic Stimulis Package!!

@rodney850 (2145)
United States
January 29, 2009 10:55am CST
No matter how you feel about president Obama OR Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh presents the best argument for a bi-partisan stimulis plan that anyone, including the president, has come up with yet! This plan simply takes the best of both sides of the arguement and puts them together and as one famous sports-caster, Chris Berhman would say; I--think--it--could--go--all--the--way!! Here is the article from Rush Limbaugh himself, and don't NOT read it because it is Rush. He doesn't bash anyone and it is a very informative read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
3 people like this
10 responses
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
29 Jan 09
I'm not a fan, but Rush's idea is really solid. I actually read it 5 minutes ago adn was just about to post it, but you beat me to it. Here's the problem though... He's not thinking like a politician. Yes, I know that in a basic sense, that's a good thing, but as a non-politician, he's only thinking about the country and the economy. He's not thinking about the palms that will be greased. He's not thinking about how ACORN, the ACLU, and other organizations will revolt if they see a trillion dollars in spending and don't get a cut of it. These politicians want to keep their jobs and to do that they will throw a percentage, in this case 30%-40% at these organizations to keep the support coming. As such, a trillion dollar stimulus package equals just over half a trillion to actually stimulate the economy and help the country.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Taskr, I don't believe that epiphany was lost on Rush. I believe he knows full well the why's of how this money is allocated. It even adds more to the saddness of the whole situation when our country's government has to spend twice as much just to make a few organizations happy. It also goes to how much we need election reform, including TERM LIMITS! With term limits these instances would be cut drastically if not eliminated.
1 person likes this
@uath13 (8204)
• United States
29 Jan 09
He does have a point. They've been debating so long that everything has snowballed. At this point I seriously doubt the goverment really CAN do much. Too many people have already been let go. Too many people are now jobless or homeless. All those people are now out of the econiomic loop weakening it further. They should have taken action when gas prices first spiked up over a year ago. That's when the whole house of cards ( mostly built on credit scams ) came crashing down. It will get worse long before it gets better.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Uath, I have a feeling you may be right although I hope someone, anyone comes up with a magical plan to get America out of the mess this credit scam(ie housing debaucle)has got us into. I think its a total crime for organizations such a ACORN to get one penny of this so-called stimulis plan much less 5+ billion. It is organizations like ACORN, and ACORN themselves that pushed and intimidated lenders into making loans that they knew or at least believed would never or could never be repaid!
@Destiny007 (5819)
• United States
2 Feb 09
It looks like a winner to me ... put the two together and see which one works. I'm betting on the minority one.
1 person likes this
@us2owls (1681)
• United States
29 Jan 09
A brilliant read and idea. At least the stimulus plan would be done according to the % of votes for both sides. Obama should read and digest this. It would certainly boost his poularity if he presented it to the house and senate which in my opinion is dropping by the day. If things go on as they are I think our President might find himself working with a Republican majority but then maybe not if ACORN can get in enough fraudulent votes if they get the massive payout that they are likely to get from the current stimulus plans.
@laglen (19778)
• United States
29 Jan 09
That sounds like the best Bi-Partisan idea so far!
@peavey (16991)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Rush is smart. He's figured out a workable plan, and it's too bad that so many won't take the time to even read it. We can only wish that anyone in the Obama administration will take note of it (except, of course, to tell Congress to quit reading it).
1 person likes this
@Savvynlady (3685)
• United States
29 Jan 09
I read the article and Mr Limbaugh made some interesting points, although I am sure the financial wizards would have something to say in all of this of course. I can only wish our president the best in this because he'll need it. but I also hope perhaps that this would be a good thing for this country, that is my thing.
• United States
29 Jan 09
46% of that is a great idea, the other 54% is a bit off the wall and a meaningless waste of money, but hey, I will take that over a 100% meaningless waste of money anyday.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27521)
• United States
29 Jan 09
I read it but I'm not sold. It's the same old same old, cut more taxes on the rich and everything will be hunky-dory. What we need is more infrastructure spending than Obama has even proposed. That will create jobs and it will fix all the things that are broken and worn out in this country after decades of neglect. Roads, bridges, our power grid, water mains, subway systems, railways, run down schools and hospitals, the list goes on and on. I know this isn't what conservatives want to see but it's my opinion and many economists agree with me, including Jim Cramer. Annie
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Annie, I agree with your ideas about infrastructure. What I can't see or understand is why people who lean to the left can't see that it is the people with the money that drive the country and its economy, NOT the government and its handout programs! By lowering their taxes (yes, they would have more money, shame, shame)it allows them the opportunity to do what they like to do best--expand. By expanding, viola! The economy GROWS! I know the huge corporations are portrayed as greedy and self serving and that may be true to an extent but, and that is a BIG but, in order to feed their greed and self-servance they HAVE to spend some money and history proves that when they are taxed less they spend more and the economy profits from it just as they do!
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Annie, you and I totally agree on infrastructure spending for job creation. The thing is, not everyone does that work. Not everyone is qualified for that work. If you cut taxes on businesses like Walmart, who employ millions of Americans, you open the door for them to hire more people. Every industry is cutting jobs right now to save money. If they are paying less taxes, they'll have money that allows them to keep those workers. Anyone with a pulse can work at Walmart. It takes more than a pulse to build bridges and fix a power grid. Even with training some people are not physically capable of doing that work.
@anniepa (27521)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Why hasn't it worked these past eight years under Bush then? I do understand your point to some extent but it's also the middle class, the people who do, or would like to do if they only had a job, the work. The rich can't get by only producing good and services for the rest of the rich. If the middle and lower income people don't have any money to spend there will be need for fewer workers, which means less people with money to spend, etc. Really, I believe it's the middle class that drives the country and the economy and they're the ones who have been getting screwed for years now. One problem I've had with Rush recently, although it's not in the article you linked to, is his constant refrain against giving a "tax cut" to those who don't actually end up paying Federal Income Taxes although they do pay other taxes such as Social Security and Medicare. He's said that's a plot by the Democrats to keep them voting Democratic forever. I don't know what anyone's motives are but to me these are the people who NEED this money and they're the ones who will spend it immediately. They'll buy new clothes they've been doing without, they'll buy more food, they might even go out for dinner or buy something a bit frivolous, but they'll spend money that wouldn't otherwise be spent and there are millions of people in that category. Give a multi-millionaire several thousand extra dollars and what do you think he or she will do with it? It probably won't change his spending habits one bit, it will sit in a bank somewhere or be invested. Annie Annie
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
2 Feb 09
Greetings Sir Rodney, This is the only truly bi-partisan proposal that I have read thus far. Obama's suggestion that he is pursuing a bi-partisan effort by inviting GOP reps to a taxpayer funded booze fest, where the invited guests will be expected to demonstrate their gratitude for having been invited in the first place by voting for a SCREAMING LEFT bill is disingenous at best. At worst, it is one more glaring example of Liberals basking in their confidence that the American voter is a nincompoop! The only problem that I see with Rush's proposal is that it doesn't take into account the 40% of eligible U.S. voters who opted out of the November election. Had they known that their vote would be such a direct factor in this massive pork bill, I have to imagine that they would have made the effort. To make it truly just, that 54/46 split should be based on the percentage of actual voters. To be clear, the 8.9 billion dollar "porkage" (thanks to a sharp-witted friend for that play on words -- wink, wink) should be reduced by 40% to reflect the no confidence vote of the non-voting citizens, leaving only 60% or 5.34 billion to be divided by the 54/46 split. Or was it 53%?