About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Limbaugh tells caller with personal economic troubles: "Well, you might want to consult history. ... It was much worse than this 26 years ago"

January 22, 2009 12:47 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh responded to a caller's account of her own economic troubles as a homeowner and small business owner and her assertion that she "need[s] people to start believing that America is going to turn that corner" by stating, "Well, you might want to consult history," adding: "It was much worse than this 26 years ago."

123 Comments

During the January 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh responded to a caller's account of her own economic troubles as a homeowner and small business owner and her assertion that she "need[s] people to start believing that America is going to turn that corner" by stating, "Well, you might want to consult history." He went on to add: "It was much worse than this 26 years ago, Ronald Reagan's second year."

The caller, a self-described "small business owner" named "Marie," asserted that she has a "house that's now valued at $200,000 worth less than what we bought it for" and that her "own business" is "hurting." She went on to state that she "didn't vote for [President] Obama" and does not support his policies. Nonetheless, she stated: "But God, I need the hope. I need people to open their wallets. I need them to start spending and believing that the economy is going to get better, or myself and hundreds of other people up and down my street are going to lose our houses, are going to lose our families and everything. And that's the thing that kills me -- the thing that I really need for people to believe in."

After asserting, "I should care more about the policy and all that stuff, but I need people to start believing that America is going to turn that corner, because we've got to get to the bottom of this and start moving up," she asked Limbaugh, "What do I do, Rush?"

Limbaugh responded:

LIMBAUGH: Well, you might want to consult history. I don't know how old you are, but I've got a story in the stack that I'll get to quickly. It was much worse than this 26 years ago, Ronald Reagan's second year. The 1970s were an absolute disaster: double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates. Nobody could borrow because they couldn't afford it. You couldn't -- and back then, you had to have 20 percent down to buy a house unless you went FHA, and even -- and that was very tough to qualify for back then. I mean, there's a reason that 20 percent down for a house -- it shows a commitment to the purchase.

Limbaugh also asserted that Obama "did not mention incentive" in his inaugural address and asked the caller, "What do you expect Obama to do to make your customers start spending money?"

Later in the show, Limbaugh referred back to "Marie," stating:

LIMBAUGH: Now, it strikes me as sad in a way because honest, folks, if I -- if I were hurting like Marie in Discovery Bay, and about to lose my business -- and by the way, I've been broke twice in my life. I've described the circumstances. I wouldn't be sitting around waiting for somebody to tell me what I should do, wouldn't be sitting around waiting for somebody in Washington to come up with a plan that's going to start getting people to spend money. And I -- it's just something that I cannot relate to. I would be doing everything I could to make money. If that meant a different line of work, so be it. But that may sound harsh to people in today's America, because we live in an age where a great economy with burgeoning opportunity is something the American people expect. And when it's not there on a cyclical basis, then a crisis ensues. And I think poor Marie has been subjected to how many years of media attempts to create a crisis mentality where the economy is concerned. For five years, at least, the media's been trying to convince every one of you that we're already in a recession, and now, they're trying to convince you we are in a depression, that it is worse than the Great Depression, and it isn't.

We haven't even gotten close to how bad it was in the 1970s. We haven't gotten close to the recession in 1982. Yet this willingness to -- I mean, she started her own business at some point, but now she's willing to put aside whatever she did at that time to start the business and sit around and hope that there will be some change come down the pike because of a change in occupants in the White House.

From the January 21 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Well, I wanted to just phone in because I adore you, but I have to hold you account for the little person out here. I am a small business owner -- one person, home-based. I have a house that's now valued at $200,000 worth less than what we bought it for it five years ago. And up and down my street are all home-based self-employed contractors. You name it: GCs, window guys, electricians. We all do our own business, and we're hurting.

And I didn't vote for Obama. I don't believe anything -- any of the socialist policies he's got going on. But God, I need the hope. I need people to open their wallets. I need them to start spending and believing that the economy is going to get better, or myself and hundreds of other people up and down my street are going to lose our houses, are going to lose our families and everything. And that's the thing that kills me -- the thing that I really need for people to believe in. I almost -- like I really --

LIMBAUGH: OK.

MARIE: I should care. I should care more about the policy and all that stuff, but I need people to start believing that America is going to turn that corner, because we've got to get to the bottom of this and start moving up. What do I do, Rush?

LIMBAUGH: Well, you might want to consult history. I don't know how old you are, but I've got a story in the stack that I'll get to quickly. It was much worse than this 26 years ago, Ronald Reagan's second year. The 1970s were an absolute disaster: double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates. Nobody could borrow because they couldn't afford it. You couldn't -- and back then, you had to have 20 percent down to buy a house unless you went FHA, and even -- and that was very tough to qualify for back then. I mean, there's a reason that 20 percent down for a house -- it shows a commitment to the purchase.

At any rate, the country came around with policies that got government out of the way, that lowered business and personal income taxes. It encouraged -- you know the one word that Obama did not mention yesterday in his speech? There were many words he didn't mention -- one word key: did not mention incentive.

CALLER: Oh, that's true.

LIMBAUGH: No incentive. What do you expect Obama to do to make your customers start spending money?

CALLER: You know, I don't know, but I know -- you know, when you're watching the -- and I have to admit I agree with you that the fawning and the -- you know, I was waiting for the great golden idol to be put up in the middle of the square. You know, forget --

LIMBAUGH: But you are -- look, I've got to run here, but you are willing to put up with that if you think some of this is going to come your way. And this, unfortunately, is the trick that they are playing. They're roping in otherwise responsible people like you with policies that have put you where you are in the first place.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: We just had a fascinating phone call, and I made a mistake in not asking the caller to hang on so I could continue to talk with her personally in this hour. Her name was Marie. She was calling from Discovery Bay. Discovery Bay where, Mr. Snerdley? Do you -- yeah, Discovery Bay, California. And she was a very important caller in many ways. Her business is in trouble. Nobody -- I didn't get what her business is, but she -- I didn't ask her -- but she said that everybody in her neighborhood, everybody on her block, is in trouble, that nobody has any money to spend, that the value of her home has plummeted. And she just -- she's all for the stimulus, because she -- she wants somebody to do something. And she's not particularly fond of Obama, but at least somebody's going to do something, and she needs something to be done.

And I think, in Marie from Discovery Bay, we heard probably the prototype example of why millions of people -- millions of people supported Obama. He doesn't provide any answers to her problems, but she has hope that he does. And she said that the people need to have hope and confidence in the economy. They need to open their wallets. They need to start spending in order for her business not to go under, and the value of her home, thus, to become what it once was, to wipe out that loss. So, the hope to have confidence in the economy is something she thinks that Obama might bring. She was -- I don't know, not begging, but she was -- she was plaintive, she was asking me what she should do.

Now, it strikes me as sad in a way because honest, folks, if I -- if I were hurting like Marie in Discovery Bay, and about to lose my business -- and by the way, I've been broke twice in my life. I've described the circumstances. I wouldn't be sitting around waiting for somebody to tell me what I should do, wouldn't be sitting around waiting for somebody in Washington to come up with a plan that's going to start getting people to spend money. And I -- it's just something that I cannot relate to. I would be doing everything I could to make money. If that meant a different line of work, so be it. But that may sound harsh to people in today's America, because we live in an age where a great economy with burgeoning opportunity is something the American people expect. And when it's not there on a cyclical basis, then a crisis ensues. And I think poor Marie has been subjected to how many years of media attempts to create a crisis mentality where the economy is concerned. For five years, at least, the media's been trying to convince every one of you that we're already in a recession, and now, they're trying to convince you we are in a depression, that it is worse than the Great Depression, and it isn't.

We haven't even gotten close to how bad it was in the 1970s. We haven't gotten close to the recession in 1982. Yet this willingness to -- I mean, she started her own business at some point, but now she's willing to put aside whatever she did at that time to start the business and sit around and hope that there will be some change come down the pike because of a change in occupants in the White House.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (January 22, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
         

      Is MMFA getting a few licks in on the caller? From the way the introduction read, MMFA is having a hard time believing the identity of the caller

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (January 22, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
           

        I think after the whole 'Joe' the 'Plumber' fiasco, we have to be skeptical of all wingnut self-employed 'little people'.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
             

          The callers I am most skeptical of are the ones who claim to be former Liberals who were transformed into Conservatives after listening to Rush.

          Yeah, sure.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DAWUSS (January 22, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
               

            Listen to him for his prescribed 6 weeks, then. If you want a faster result, make it an all day of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Bill O'Reilly, and I feel like I'm missing someone from this list...

            I must admit, though, that my time here on MMFA has shaped me politically.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
                 

              I have a confession of my own.  I was a regular Rush listener back before Clinton was elected.  He was just slightly more even-handed before he spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom, then he became a water-carrier for the GOP.

              I continued to listen through most of the Clinton administration, and hearing Rush lie every day helped convert me from a waffling moderate into a flaming Liberal.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 22, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
                   

                Nerzog,

                Glad to hear you formed your poltical views based on principle.  :-)  

                Oh wait, it is because you didn't like a radio talk show host.  That explains a lot.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
                     

                  That's not even what Nerzog said.  Nice job of taking his post out of context, purposefully, to prove some point that has even eluded you!

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 22, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
                       

                    That's pretty funny, & sort of fits in with the whining about "I got called a troll just because I had a different opinion".

                    Nerz mentions witnessing Rush develop into more of a propagandizing liar, seeing that Rush's ideology was dependent on lies, as a factor in getting his political ideas straight, and AA interprets that as "not liking Rush".

                    Because on Planet Wingnut, lies and the truth are just two different , but equally valid opinions. If you call a liar a liar, it's just a personality conflict, and you're intolerant.

                    It's pretty generous of these wingnuts to come here and give us these glimpses into conservative mental disorders.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 8:15 pm ET)
                         

                      I enjoy the company of wingnuts here.  They help me in my studies of conservative wingnuttery, so that I may teach my children (who will be raised by two adoring gay men, probably married at that point!) how NOT to act.

                      Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
                 

              Depending on the market, you can add Dr. Laura and Michael Savage.  If you can survive such a day with your sanity intact, you're made of sterner stuff than I.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by RedRightHand (January 23, 2009 8:02 am ET)
                 

              You could add Michael Savage or Laura Ingraham.  Laura's a bracing jolt of crazy in the morning.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
         

       Pigboy the Financial Counselor.  Here's a guy making 40 million a year, lecturing people who are drowning in a paralyzed economy that they aren't doing enough for themselves.  What an a$$hole.

      I remember a few years ago, when the Rustbelt was laying off people by the tens of thousands, his remedy was for all of them to start their own businesses.  I wonder if Marie was one of those who took his advice?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (January 22, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
           

        How much of his $40 mil goes back into the economy (after taxes)?

        Anyway, given that premise, what could callers ask Rush for advice on? Relationships? Getting a career in talk radio? Food? The military? Super Bowl picks?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
             

          How to lie convincingly?  How to become a hack partisan radio propagandist and get filthy rich on the gullibility and ignorance of your audience?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
             

          I wonder how much of Pigboy's paycheck finds its way into Castro's pocket for those black market Cuban cigars?  Come on;  you know he has some.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (January 22, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
               

            He's also helping out the Viagra producers and whatever it is they do in the Dominican Republic.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (January 22, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
           

        Nerzog, so he makes a large amount of money per year, why do you care?  I am sure if you came up with an idea, or found something that people would pay money for you would not turn it down?  How much money do you think he gives back?  I remember listening one day, and he gave 2 million dollars his favorite charity.  Seems like a nice percentage of his money went back to those in need.  How much do you provide in charity?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
             

          We care, generally, because Limbaugh is a liar.  Personally, I don't believe a person should be paid (especially 40 million/year) to lie on public airwaves.  It does the public a disservice - and I find it to be anti-American.  Personally, I feel it's immoral for a person to rake in that kind of money, when all this person does is sit his bloated, chickenhawk a$$ behind a microphone and spread lies and vitriol. 

          The thing is, Limbaugh could use his program as a force for good.  Instead, he uses it to divide people.  He uses it for hate.  He uses it to insult and to make himself look good at the expense of others.  The worst part of it all is that when he thinks he's telling the truth, when he believes he's delivering the purest truth, he's usually very uneducated on the subject and typically wrong.  Again, a disservice to the public. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (January 22, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
               

            "Common" so you find someone that makes a large amount of money "to be anti-American” Common, you are a perfect example of what is wrong with some liberals in this great country, you see capitalism as wrong, you make me sick.  Just wondering before I go and throw up, what is your cut off for Anti American when it comes to income? 

            This is from a heavy liberal website, I guess this is would be "anti-American" in your world also. 

            Charitable work

            Leukemia and lymphoma telethon
            Limbaugh holds an annual fundraising telethon called the "EIB Cure-a-Thon"[78] for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.[79] In 2006 the EIB Cure-a-Thon conducted its 16th annual telethon, raising $1.7 million;[80] totaling over $15 million since the first cure-a-thon.[81] According to Leukemia and Lymphoma Society annual reports, Limbaugh personally contributed between $100,000 and $499,999 from 2000 - 2005 and 2007,[82] and Limbaugh claims to have contributed around $250,000 in 2003, 2004 and 2005.[83] NewsMax reported Limbaugh donated $250,000 in 2006,[84] but the Society's 2006 annual report placed him in the $500,000 to $999,999 category.[82]Limbaugh donated $320,000 during the 2007 Cure-a-Thon[85] which the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reported had raised $3.1 million.[86] On his radio program April 18, 2008, Limbaugh claimed to pledge $400,000 to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society after being challenged by two listeners to increase his initial pledge of $300,000.[87]


            Rush 24/7 Adopt-A-Soldier Program
            Limbaugh's website maintains a page where American soldiers can register for a free subscription to Limbaugh's online premium service, Rush 24/7, through memberships purchased by donors who buy a subscription (at a reduced price) as a gift.[88]


            Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation
            Limbaugh conducts an annual drive to help the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation collect contributions to provide scholarships for children of Marines and law enforcement officers/agents who have died in the line of duty.[89][90] The foundation was the beneficiary of a record $2.1 million eBay auction in October 2007 after Limbaugh listed for sale a letter critical of him signed by 41 Democratic senators and pledged to match the selling price.[91]

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rms (January 22, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                 

              Mark199

              Try rereading his post.  CSL did NOT say that making a lot of money was un-American.  He said that making a lot of money TO LIE was un-American.  Huge difference..

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 22, 2009 7:05 pm ET)
                   

                Cut some slack, rms. You know how excited they get when their poor reading comprehension tells them they're seeing "wealth envy", or "anti-capitalism", or whatever else Rush told them they'd see. Har! They just start typing and copy/pasting like little chipmuonks on crack.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (January 22, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                 

              Your numbers concerning Limbaugh's "giving" is supposed to impress us? Really?

              According to your OWN FIGURES, Limbaugh gave a MAXIMUM of $1.9 million- and that's if you just add up the maximum figures you gave us, and don't account for the fact that you go over the same time period more than once.  Hell, let's DOUBLE that and add another $100,000 just for the sake of argument and generosity.  That means that over an eight year period (2000-2008) Limbaugh personally donated $4 million to charity. 

              In that same time period, Limbaugh made approximately $200 million.  So Mr. Huge Heart gave a whopping 2% of his income to this  Leukemia fund.  Wow, that's just super, it really is. 

              Not to mention that Limbaugh seems to be doing all his giving under the bright lights of his adoring fans. Whatever happened to that "pray in the dark" thing I used to hear so much about?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (January 22, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
                   

                You're just counting his contract with Clear Channel, it's way less than 2% when you consider all product endorsement money and speaking fees etc. Four million is probably more like one tenth of one percent.

                What a great man. 

                Report Abuse
            • Author by TJ_rex (January 23, 2009 7:30 pm ET)
                 

              Limbaugh has found a gullible audience. He's an entertainer but people who like to be spoon fed their information love him.

              The money he raises and charities he supports are to make him feel good about his dishonesty. If he's religious it's probably a way he hopes will keep him out of hell.

              Corporations do it to show the communities they pretend to care about them. It's just a big tax write off.

              He's just trying to maintain his audience base so he won't lose his job.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by laissezfairesucks (January 23, 2009 11:03 am ET)
               

            The Fairness Doctrine was the best remedy we ever had to counter that very problem (of lying on the public airwaves).

            Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (January 22, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
             

          Groaann....it's hardly worth it, but--- Rush Limbaugh makes $40 million a year.  If he gave $2 million to charity, that equals five percent of his income.  That might seem like a decent amount to most people, but let's keep in mind that he makes forty million dollars a year.  I don't give five percent of my income to charity- but I don't make forty million dollars a year. 

          Once he's done paying for all of his essentials- food, parking, cigars, Manhatten Penthouse Apartment, Five truckloads of Oxycontin, and whatever teenaged latin boys are going for these days, my guess is that Limbaugh has plenty of money left over.  Good for him if he gives some of it to charity.  Pardon me, though, if I don't chip in to buy him a medal OR a chest to pin it on.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (January 22, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
               

            James - His 5% percent is more then yours, he is one step ahaed of you in making this world better.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (January 22, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                 

              No amount of money donated to charity can make up for some of the things he's pulled over the years.

              He's a coward who stated that he wants President Obama to fail. This from the guy who never gets tired of telling his listeners that he's the most listened to person on the radio.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (January 22, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
                 

              1.  My name is not James.

              2.  What medieval view of charity do you adhere to, where you think that the amount of money you hand off equates making the world a better place?  I would argue that Rush is doing significantly more damage to the world than I am- if his income allows him to give more cash to charity, good for him.  I suspect he has a lot more to answer for than I do. 

              I'm still shaking my head over your concept of charity- Rush does more "good" than I do because he has access to more money.  Perfect.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 23, 2009 8:45 am ET)
                 

              Hitler was nice to his dogs.  What's your point?

              I don't care if Rush gives 75% of his income to charity... it doesn't make him any less of a lying a$$hole.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (January 22, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
         
      Its her words. I dont see snips or some editing. This is as sane a thing that I've seen from Rush. This is not a compliment to him. The hits have a little nuance to them, as opposed to general frothing of the mouth.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (January 22, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
         
      26 years ago, limbaugh was just an unemployed fat toad, so for him, things were worse then. as for the economy as a whole, not quite, reagan's best efforts to screw it up notwithstanding. we had inflation, high interest rates and higher than normal unemployment, but all siginificantly below the present, even adjusted for inflation. as well, a good hunk of the banking system hadn't imploded, requiring massive gov't bailouts. consumer debt, as a % of GDP, was lower than now. of course, for limbaugh, now is definitely better than 26 years ago.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (January 22, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
         

      Come on...Rush Limbaugh couldn't just make things up. He's on the radio...so it must be true. ;>)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (January 22, 2009 6:30 pm ET)
           

        Rush does make a good point.

        Unfortunately, he does.

        It was no picnic in the late 70s-- inflation was much much worse than now, so were energy problems-- we haven't had 60 % annual rent increases yet. NYC was bankrupt, so were other cities.

        L. downplays problems now, but he's totally right about troubles back then.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 22, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
             

          We may not have had rent increases yet, but most food products have doubled or more in price when gas skyrocketed and I have yet to see most of those prices drop back down. So no, he's selectively picking what to express as some evidence of proof.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (January 22, 2009 10:48 pm ET)
             

          "he's totally right about troubles back then."

          Really? Was it much worse than this 26 years ago?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by jamesB (January 22, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
         

      whether or not the economy is worse today than in the 70's or the 80's is really irrelevant to this woman's situation, or anyones situation at the present.  So Rush's answer to her was just a deflection.  but he makes a good point about how people cannot wait for some magic wand to be waved in Washington by anyone. that's a recipe for financial hardship.  even Obama says it will be a long time before things improve.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Caseysprings (January 22, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
           

        you are a troll . LOL just kidding i am mocking the so called censors on here who make China look like a free country.

        I agree, Obama says we are in for touch times  and Rush does make a good point.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
             

          You've been censored?  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 22, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
               

            By partisans, no doubt.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (January 22, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
                 

              You hater!!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (January 22, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
                   

                The colonel is riding his hate horse again. Does the man have no shame? ;-)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (January 22, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
                     

                  Colonel, please get off your colt of contempt!

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by princeofwheels (January 22, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
                     

                  JJ, does the Colonels' hate horse have no name?

                  Today Rush said his one big mistake is that he assumes people are as smart as him. Rush, you are right. Not many are on your level of intelligence. Rush, if you would only quit believing your press clippings and wallet size, you may come to realize that you are not making a mistake. Most people are as intelligent as you and many more intelligent. It is you listeners that have no brains because they can only repeat what you say. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
                       

                    Rush often likes to demonstrate just how stupid his audience really is.... I think it's a little inside joke with him and his staff.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pithaughn (January 22, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
                       

                    He also said prgressives/ liberals have as many brain cells as an amoeba. I guess somewhere out there is an amoeba with an advanced degree in computer science.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by Caseysprings (January 22, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
               

            Some attempts to censor me, by throwing the "troll" line around.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
                 

              Calling someone a troll equals censorship?  

              Report Abuse
            • Author by wookie (January 22, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
                 

              If you are censored then why are we still hearing your self pity?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (January 22, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
                 

              Casey,

              The word "Troll" is a common invective used by many here toward those with whom the simply disagree. Some here have to rely on juvenile insults when they really have nothing to add to the conversation.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 22, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
                   

                Casey,

                Blaming others for their shortcomings is a common tactic used by trolls, For example, pretending that the word "troll" is used to describe those who merely disagree, or that being called a "liar" when one is lying amounts to juvenile name-calling..

                Report Abuse
                • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
                     

                  Another trollism is to cry "censorship" whenever someone drives a Mack Truck through the hole in your logic.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by neon desert (January 22, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
                       

                    Agreed.  As far as I know, the only people who have been truly censored on this site are quilting enthusiasts.

                    Them, and whatever Huntington Beach Lefty did...

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Caseysprings (January 22, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                   

                Very true Anotheramerican. We saw that word used yesterday by such tolerant people who had different views than we did on the issue of Rick Warren.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 22, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                     

                  But did you see that word used simply because you had different views? Do you see your logical mistake here?. It would be strange for somebody to call another a troll if they were in complete agreement on everything, unless the "hater" was a big fan of trolling.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 22, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
                     

                  Wow, 1 person wasted a great deal of time tossing out the "troll" tag left and right and you and AA are suddenly the targets of unbearable persecution by everyone who has a different point of view.  Have either of you seen my matching pot and kettle?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Marker (January 22, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
                     

                  I wouldn't call you a troll, why insult trolls?

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
             

          The only point Rush makes is the point at the tip of the boil on his buttocks.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Pyrrhonist (January 22, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
         

      Reason # 4,093 to be positive about the new administration - Rush Limbaugh no longer has the ear of the leader of the free world. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
           

        That is comforting.  I also hope they cleared out that den of evangelical vipers who were whispering nonsense into President Numbnuts' ear.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by onionhead (January 22, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
           

        You mean Obama is not inviting Rush to his birthday party?

        http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/14/bush-limbaugh-birthday/

        We can can get a smaller cake and so reduce deficit spending!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
             

          I think since Obama is throwing a drug-free party, he figures Limbaugh would feel awkward.  It would be too bad for ole Rushie, sitting alone in the corners of the room. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by onionhead (January 22, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
               

            "It would be too bad for ole Rushie, sitting alone in the corners of the room." 

            When Rush sits around the house, he really sits around the house.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (January 22, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
         
      What's the big deal? No one is allowed to disagree with the notion that the economy is the worst now since the Great Depression?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (January 22, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
           

        And this happened on November 5, 2008. ;)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
           

        Yes, they are allowed, and we are allowed to disagree with them, and you are allowed to disagree with us...etc.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Eric Jaffa (January 22, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
             

          I mean, I don't see why it should be considered shocking enough for MMFA to highlight that a radio host said that the recession of the early 1980s was worse than the current recession.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 22, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
               

            The point is he was wrong.  And the current downturn is apparently in it's early stages so I imagine a comparison to the recession of the 80s is bit premature right now.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (January 22, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
           

        No one is allowed to disagree with the notion that the economy is the worst now since the Great Depression?

        Apparently not. Younger people have no idea how bad things were back in the 70's- early 80's--- in many ways, worse than now for the general run of people.

        How about apartment rent doubling every two years (no rent control) or gas tripling in price? Unemployment at 12 to 14 %?

        We haven't had any of that yet.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 22, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
             

          How soon they forget the recent gas crisis of > $4.00 a gallon.

          But the truth is Reagan started the transition from the manufacturing society to the supply side service economy. Back then one sector's failure could be easily absorbed. Now when we have layoffs, all the loss in discretionary spending in turn causes stores, eating establishments and the like to cut back on their staffing. It's just a perpetuating snowball with each layoff resulting in more staff cutbacks in the services industries. Bush and the republicans knew this, that's why they kept pushing those tax rebates with the message of "spend, spend, spend". But it was already too little, too late to do any good.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 23, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
             

          We may soon see double digit unemplyment.  As for your housing analogy, what's worse: Rent Doubling in 1 year or your house losing so much value that you owe mare than it's worth.  I'll give you a hint: RENT has competition.  I can move, if the rent gets to high.  OTH - I CAN'T move if I can't sell my house.  So it's worse now. And given the causes and current codnitions, the potential for this current situation to drag on for another year or more is FAR more likely than it was in 1982, or indead any time since the 1930's.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by k2 (January 22, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
         

      The economy went to h*ll under republican leadership 26 years ago and is gone to h*ll again under republican leadership. What i get from this is stop voting for republicans.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
           

        You just don't understand Republican Economics 101.  

        Rule #1 is that EVERYTHING good is due to Republican policies, no matter how long after the fact.  You know all that prosperity we had in the 90s?  Delayed reaction to Reaganomics .  You know that economic recovery we had 6 years ago?  Instant reaction to Bushonomics.

        Rule #2?  You guessed it.  EVERYTHING bad is the result of Democratic policies... you know, like the Obama recession we are now suffering.

        It's really easy once you learn the basic formula.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (January 22, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
             

          I think I've got it down, now.

          The Dow dropped Tuesday because Obama was inaugurated.  It rose on Wed. because of a latent trickle of Reaganomics.  It's tanking today because Hillary showed up for work this morning.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 22, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
               

            But don't worry, sometime in 2010 The Bush Recovery will kick in :)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
                 

              See how easy it is?  If and when the economy recovers, it will be due to Bush's tax cuts.  If it doesn't recover, it will be Obama's fault.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by MidnightWriter (January 22, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
         

      Amazing. First they tried to deny that there was any hint of economic problems. When that was disproved they tried to blame Democrats and the media for creating it. Now with that disproved they’re trying to tell us, quit your whining, thing really aren’t all that bad, oh, and by the way, FDR wasn’t such a great guy.

      Rush now likes to call himself the “last man standing.” Think he’ll realize that by supporting arguments like this he’s smashing a tire iron into his knees?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (January 22, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
           

        That "last man standing" argument just kills me. Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage each claim to be the "last man standing" against the "Liberal Oppression"

        Report Abuse
        • Author by rms (January 22, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
             

          In the heels of her brilliant literary triumph (excuse me, I have to use the restroom...) "Guilty," perhaps Ann Coulter will do a book on Republican talk show host "last man standing... against liberal oppression" victimized whiners.

          Perhaps not...

          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (January 22, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
           

        In order to be the last man standing, wouldn't one have to be a man?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
             

          And I think the saying implies that you have to be standing, too.  Rush loses on both accounts.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by pithaughn (January 22, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
         
      Somewhere in the bible, there is a parable comparing the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle with a wealthy man's chances of going to heaven. I have this mental image of Rush hanging on for dear life to the neck of a camel galloping through a desolate dessert.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
           

        Ahhh, we can only dream, pithaughn, we can only dream...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (January 22, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
         

      Why is this even on MMFA anyway? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (January 22, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
           

        MMFA put this article out because they knew you would come by and ask,

        WITH?

        Jeezus dude.  It's a website.  MMFA can do what they want with their own website, you know, just like you can if you have a website.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (January 22, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
           

        For fun. Lighten up, Francis.

        Randy

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tj (January 22, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
           

        Perhaps because Limbaugh's main premise:

        The 1970s were an absolute disaster: double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates. Nobody could borrow because they couldn't afford it.

        Is completely wrong. Unemployment never hit 10% until well into Reagan's second year (Carter's last months saw mostly declining unemployment, averaging 7.1% for the year). Interest rates were raised by Conservative's good buddy Paul Volcker in an attempt to squash inflation, which was mainly caused by 2 factors:

        1. Middle Class Wages; and

        2. Huge increases in oil prices

        After this period, the Official CPI no longer included energy in the inflation numbers (and housing and healthcare and education and food), partly in order to reign in COLAs, but also to change the psychology that caused the constant upward spiral of wages.

        Still, in 1979 a middle-class family could live on one income and for the most part buy a new car every few years, own their home, send their kids to college, and take a vacation or two a year.

        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1975                      8.5 BLS
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1976                      7.7 BLS
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1977                      7.1 BLS
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1978                      6.1 BLS
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1979                      5.8 BLS
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1980                      7.1 BLS
        
        
        HTH
        
        Civilian labor force unemployment rate 1981                      7.6 BLS

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Marker (January 22, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
           

        The better question is why are YOU here?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 22, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
         
      Hmmmm, one of Rush's bits of schtick is declaring that Obama has failed because things didn't get better on Day One. And yet here he is admitting that in YEAR TWO of Saint Reagan (All Praise to His Name) things were not that great. Funny how that works.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (January 22, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
         

      If Rush had been in charge during the Great Depression, America would have crashed and burned. Self reliance doesn't mean squat when you are without means of support AND those who can supply those means aren't hiring. Might as well tell her to live in the forest and eat grubs and berries, but that would diminish and interfere with Rush's normal daily repast.

      Randy

      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (January 22, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
         

      Does anyone else remember the 'Misery Index'?  If you do, thank Jimmy Carter.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
           

        Maybe we should bring it back and thank George W. Numbnuts Bush.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (January 22, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
             

          eggnog,

          I think it was mortgage rate + unemployment rate, or was it unemployment and inflation or inflation and mortgage?

          So President Carter

                22% home mortgage(if you could even get one)   7.2% unemployment  13.8% inflation

          President Bush

                 4.8% mortgage           7.0 unemployment    1.1% inflation

          Bring it on!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (January 22, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
               

            7.0 unemployment

            Of course, that's a bogus number. It's actually larger, because those whose unemployment benefits have run out and are no longer seeking employment are not included in the unemployment figures. The actual number is quite a bit higher.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (January 23, 2009 8:51 am ET)
               

            PompousTroglodyte,

            I don't think we had a worldwide paralysis of the bankings system 26 years ago, did we?  I hope they're wrong, but most economists I've heard are saying that this thing is just getting started.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (January 22, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
         
      Rush can give his money to the government via taxes or to the charities and be a do-gooder. He can also write-off his time donated to the do-goodiness stuff. Should he charge $50,000 for a lecture of one hour, he can write-off $50,000 for an appearance for a charity. So save the "he's a charitable person BS" for his website. This person is not a nice person, He divides people to fatten his wallet. His ego, not drug enduced, runs his life. Don't believe me, just listen to him for 10 minutes. I don't think Rush likes to go back in time before 1980...his stay in Pittsburgh was not exactly EIB stuff for him
      Report Abuse
      • Author by proudconservative (January 22, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
           

        princessofflats,

        How's that 'progressive' radio programming enterprise going in the Steel City?  Jimmy Q says hey to ya!

        PS  Go Stillers!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by laissezfairesucks (January 23, 2009 10:53 am ET)
         

      The caller mentions Obama's socialist policies, and that she's against them...does she mean his policy of pushing Tom Daschle's health insurance MANDATES on AMericans? How about his unequivocal support of Israel, a la Bush Lite? How about his desire to expand the war?

      When are Americans going to start ANALYZING what the hell they are saying and try to define what SOCIALISM is versus what we have in the United States which is LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by laissezfairesucks (January 23, 2009 10:57 am ET)
         

      Does Limbaugh get 20 MILLION a year to spew his neo-conservative propaganda? He couldn't care less about this woman beyond hoping that she doesn't infect his listener base with the despair of failed capitalism.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnmartin7507 (January 23, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
         

      Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Seldona (January 24, 2009 2:36 am ET)
         

      The water carrier speaks! 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (January 25, 2009 12:48 am ET)
         

      "need[s] people to start believing that America is going to turn that corner"

      For the past year Limbaugh and his ilk have been bleating there was no pending financial crisis. Now that we are in the middle of a recession/depression they have all changed their tack to say all we need to do is "belive" our way out?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.