Limbaugh, Hannity, and the GOP: an iron triangle of stimulus misinformation
On any given day during the current congressional debate over the economic recovery plan, chances are good that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity will say something false about the administration's or congressional Democrats' efforts to pass a bill. And they do not promote these falsehoods in isolation; they are often promoted concurrently with each other and with Republican members of Congress. President Obama reportedly chastised congressional Republicans for "listen[ing] to Rush Limbaugh," and, as Media Matters for America has pointed out, Limbaugh has also demonstrated a proclivity for listening to -- and parroting -- congressional Republicans. For his part, in consecutive shows on January 30 and February 2, Hannity hosted Sens. Mitch McConnell, Tom Coburn and John McCain on his radio show, and on February 4 he hosted Rep. Mike Pence on Fox News. As a result, Hannity and Limbaugh have created an echo chamber of Republican talking points and misinformation criticizing the economic recovery plan. And given the acknowledgment by some national journalists that they pay attention to Limbaugh and Hannity, it follows that they care what the two are saying about the stimulus -- CNBC anchor Erin Burnett said as much about Limbaugh, touting his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on that topic as "serious."
CLAIM: Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus
In a January 29 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) attacked the economic recovery plan and offered his own "Jobs Plan That Works," saying, in part: "Just as we cut taxes for families and small businesses, we need to cut them for corporations as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent. And we shouldn't be afraid to say so. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world, driving investment and jobs overseas. Lowering this key rate will unlock trillions of dollars to be invested in America instead of abroad." On the January 21 edition of Hannity's Fox News show, Michael Steele, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: "You want -- if you want to stimulate this economy, eliminate the capital gains tax for two years and see what happens. See what happens on Monday morning if you eliminate it today." Like DeMint and Steele, Limbaugh, in his January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed on how best to stimulate the economy, wrote: "I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%." On the January 27 broadcast of his radio program, Hannity attacked the tax cuts in the recovery package as "anemic" because "They don't cut corporate tax rates. They don't cut capital gains tax rates."
However, as Media Matters has noted, many economists do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly effective methods for stimulating the economy. Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- included in 2008 written congressional testimony a table stating that every dollar spent through a "Cut in [the] Corporate Tax Rate" produces a GDP increase of only $0.30 -- the third least-efficient provision of the 13 he studied. A 2003 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report stated that a "capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains tax cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus."
From Limbaugh's January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.
From the January 27 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: I look at this as smother the private sector, in terms of the stimulus package. I don't see this as a stimulus package. And when I look at the tax cuts -- as you point out have historically gotten us out of recessions -- in this plan they're anemic. They don't cut corporate tax rates. They don't cut capital gains tax rates. It's a lifeline that the private sector I think needs, you know -- that they need to stabilize. They need to invest. They need job growth. They're the ones that create jobs.
CLAIM: Recovery package is "spending," not "stimulus"
As Media Matters noted, on the January 28 edition of his show, Limbaugh hosted Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who stated of the recovery legislation: "[T]his is a spending bill. This is not a stimulus bill. ... Even the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by the Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill." Limbaugh then said on the January 29 edition of his show that "if we're gong to stimulate the economy, there's got to be something in here that stimulates, and there just isn't. It is just traditional typical Democrat spending." Then, as Media Matters documented, the February 3 broadcast of the CBS Evening News uncritically aired a clip of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claiming that the economic recovery legislation was "not a stimulus package. It's a spending package." And Media Matters noted Hannity's February 2 falsehood that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill." In fact, the notion that "spending" is distinct from "stimulus" and the claim that the bill is not "stimulus" have been challenged by economists. CBO director Douglas Elmendorf stated in congressional testimony that the House legislation, H.R. 1, "would provide massive fiscal stimulus" and that the CBO, along with "most economists," believes that all of the spending in the bill "provides some stimulative effect." Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, "[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple."
From the February 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Here's the problem, Bob [Beckel, Democratic strategist], is that the Congressional Budget Office, which used to be the gold standard that we used to rely on to give us information, even they say it's not a stimulus bill. Goldman Sachs' CEO says it's not a stimulus bill.
What they're telling us is the following, is that, you know, the infrastructure spending and the real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus bill?
From the January 29 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I'm going to tell you what: The more this is learned -- the more of this kind of thing in this bill is learned, the more the American people are not going to want any part of this. And they're being told once again this has to happen now or we're going to have a terrible result in the economy. It's going to get even worse. And they tell us, by the way, it's going to get worse if this stimulus bill, "Porkulus" [sic] bill, goes to the Senate and the president signs it and so forth.
But this is not -- if we're gong to stimulate the economy, there's got to be something in here that stimulates, and there just isn't. It is just traditional typical Democrat spending.
CLAIM: Spending after beginning of recovery is ineffective stimulus
On the January 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity, former Bush White House senior adviser Karl Rove attacked the recovery package, saying: "Look, this is a mishmash of spending proposals, not stimulus proposals. When you have a stimulus bill that spends more in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and in the out years than it spends in 2009, that's not a stimulus bill, that is a spending bill." Hannity and Limbaugh have echoed this line of attack. As noted above, on the February 2 edition of Hannity he said: "What they're telling us is the following is that, you know, the infrastructure spending and the real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus bill?" On January 28, Hannity claimed that the "better part of this money is not going to be spent until 2010, 2011, 2012," adding: "So how is that a stimulus? We'll be out of the recession by then." On January 22, Limbaugh said: "So here now for those of you waiting for Obama to get you your healthcare, to drive you to the hospital, to fill up your car, to get you your job, to get you your gift certificate at Wal-Mart, now we're being told that over half the money wasn't going to show up until after 2010 when the recession's over?" As Media Matters has noted, however, in his January 27 written testimony, CBO's Elmendorf said:
Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends.
From the January 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: So here now for those of you waiting for Obama to get you your healthcare, to drive you to the hospital, to fill up your car, to get you your job, to get you your gift certificate at Wal-Mart, now we're being told that over half the money wasn't going to show up until after 2010 when the recession's over? By the way, I'm gonna tell you what: If he gets what he wants, if he gets what he wants, there isn't going to be a recession in 2010. It's going to be a depression.
From the January 29 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: The amazing thing to me is the more people get the details of this bill and what's in it and all the pork and how the stimulus is back-loaded, the more they oppose it. Is that good for the Republicans opposing this now?
ROVE: Well, yes, it's good for the Republicans, but more importantly, it's good for the country. Look, this is a mishmash of spending proposals, not stimulus proposals. When you have a stimulus bill that spends more in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and the out years than it spends in 2009, that's not a stimulus bill, that is a spending bill, a pork bill that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to grow government.
From the January 28 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Look, the Heritage Foundation did an analysis, the CBO did an analysis, and what they've determined is the following: that this -- Barack Obama said this is a stimulus, a jolt to the economy. The better part of this money is not going to be spent until 2010, 2011, 2012. So how is that a stimulus? We'll be out of the recession by then.
CLAIM: Illegal immigrants receive tax credits under stimulus plan
As Media Matters noted, a January 29 Associated Press article cited a single anonymous "top Republican congressional official" in reporting that the stimulus bill "could steer government checks to illegal immigrants," as it "would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for" tax credits. Both Limbaugh and Hannity repeated this claim on the January 29 editions of their radio shows. The claim, however, is false. In fact, the recovery bill specifically precludes from eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family "any individual unless the requirements of section 32(c)(1)(E) are met with respect to such individual." Section 32(c)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code, which specifies requirements for individuals to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, states:
(E) Identification number requirement
No credit shall be allowed under this section to an eligible individual who does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year --
(i) such individual's taxpayer identification number, and
(ii) if the individual is married (within the meaning of section 7703), the taxpayer identification number of such individual's spouse.
The law defines "taxpayer identification number" for purposes of Section 32(c)(1)(E) as "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration":
(m) Identification numbers
Solely for purposes of subsections (c)(1)(E) and (c)(3)(D), a taxpayer identification number means a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration (other than a social security number issued pursuant to clause (II) (or that portion of clause (III) that relates to clause (II)) of section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act).
Therefore, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act bars anyone without "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration" from eligibility for Making Work Pay tax credits. The AP later revised its January 29 article to make that clear.
From the January 29 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: So the "Porkulus" [sic] bill has passed the House, and yet why do the Democrats don't -- seem to not think that they've had a victory? Why does Obama think that he really hasn't had a victory? I've noticed all day today, they're not happy about this. They got what they wanted. Do you know that in this "Porkulus" bill, it has been learned, in addition to everything else, illegal immigrants will also be given checks of $500 to $1,000 as tax credits. So we're going to be giving cash to illegal immigrants as well, in addition to all the other things that are in the "Porkulus" bill.
From the January 29 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: And do you realize the AP even reported that if you thought the Obama-Pelosi-Reid pork-fest was bad before, did you know that under this plan some of the stimulus cash, which is going to put we the taxpayers on the hook for decades, and our children and grandchildren are going to bear the burden of this debt when we're gone, that it's going to to illegal aliens? Illegal immigrants? The House Republicans just uncovered that little detail this morning, and the AP reported "the $800 billion economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants," according to a top Congressional Republican asserting Thursday.
"The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks. Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file a tax return with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer ID number, to qualify for the tax credits." [laughs] Oh, let's not read the darn thing before we start passing -- yeah, it's only $819 billion. What's the big deal?
CLAIM: The New Deal failed, prolonged Great Depression
On the January 23 edition of Hannity, former New York City mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said: "[T]he actions of the New Deal, which may have had other reasons for them, did not work from the point of view of solving the Depression. In fact, by 1936, '37, '38, the Depression was arguably just as bad as it was in 1929." Hannity and Limbaugh have also worked attacks on the New Deal into their criticisms of the economic recovery package, with Limbaugh stating as fact that the New Deal "didn't work," and "prolonged" the Great Depression. Such claims have been flatly rejected by prominent economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who has said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not go far enough to end the crisis and that it was actually Roosevelt's reversal of New Deal policies -- in an attempt to balance the budget -- that hindered recovery.
From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: I don't think anyone could make the case that FDR's plan, New Deal, actually saved us from the Depression. I don't think that the stimulus that the Japanese government spent in the '90s actually saved them from their economic slowdown, it actually hurt them. Why do we seem to be batting our heads against the wall and wanting to revisit things that have failed in the past?
From Limbaugh's interview with Hannity on the January 21 edition of Hannity:
LIMBAUGH: I -- it has never worked. The New Deal didn't work. You know, Hoover was president through the Depression for one year. FDR prolonged the New Deal for seven or eight years, and yet he's given credit for ending the Depression. Didn't happen. World War II ended it. The New Deal didn't work.
This is new New Deal. It doesn't work. If it works, it will be the first time that it works, but it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record-breaker.
HANNITY: So I'm guessing you didn't get your Obama commemorative dinner plates, Rush?
From the January 17 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: You have a piece coming out. There's been a lot of intellectual debate, a little chatter, discussions going on about the success, in terms of whether government can be that answer and whether or not it worked for FDR. Liberals claim, in fact, it was the New Deal that got us out of the Depression. There are others that have a very different point of view and really think FDR made a lot of mistakes by implementing bigger government programs. And that actually it was World War II, in one way, that saved the economy. Now my father fought in World War II. Where do you stand on this?
JONAH GOLDBERG (National Review Online editor): Well, the argument is over whether or not the Great Depression was prolonged by the New Deal or ended by the New Deal. And the general consensus is is that the Great Depression certainly wasn't ended by the New Deal. And that it really only ended either during World War II, or during the post-world war boom.
From the January 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I take it back. It does work. It did work. FDR and his New Deal worked in fact precisely as he intended it to. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is the model for Barack Obama's raw deal. And FDR's New Deal was a champ. There may have never been anything like it. Until the October surprise of last October, which led to the new New Deal equaling the raw deal.
No, I know, folks. I know the New Deal did not get us out of the Depression. I'm not saying that that's its measure of success. The New Deal worked for Franklin Delano Roosevelt like a charm, though. It empowered the Democrat [sic] Party with unbeatable majorities in the House and Senate for 40 years. It worked like a champ.
From the November 20, 2008, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: You know, if you go back and you actually can find some objective history of the Great Depression and FDR, there are many indications that FDR -- I mean, the New Deal did not fix the Great Depression; it made it worse. The New Deal prolonged it. But in the process, FDR secured massive power for himself as well as his party. And Obama has indicated that his model is FDR.
CLAIM: Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s
On October 22, 2008, the Republican caucus of the House Budget Committee released a report citing "Japan's policy responses during its so-called 'lost decade' of the 1990s" as evidence that economic stimulus plans supported by Democrats in Congress would be ineffective. Both Limbaugh and Hannity have similarly cited Japanese fiscal policy in the 1990s in arguing against a large-scale economic recovery plan to combat the current recession in the United States. However, prominent economists have stated that economic conditions did improve when Japan undertook fiscal stimulus policies but that reversals of those policies hindered Japan's recovery. On February 6, for example, Krugman said: "[I]t's clear. The Japanese -- when they were really pushing hard, when they had strong programs, when they spent a lot on trying to buck-up their economy -- it actually did grow. What happened was they chickened out very early in the process, said, 'OK, let's cut back, let's raise interest rates, let's raise taxes, let's cut back on those public works.' And they lost momentum, and they never got it back." Similarly, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that Japan's "1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." He concluded:
Similar contractions undertaken both openly and by hidden means in 1994, 1996, and 1997, with reference to announced but unimplemented spending, had destructive effects. Future government packages must recognize that when the Japanese government paid for fiscal stimulus in 1995, it got economic growth, and that when it mistakenly pursued fiscal austerity in most of the remainder of the 1992-97 period, it got economic contraction.
From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: If government spending solved recessions, we'd never have a recession, now would we? If it was so good, why didn't it work for Japan when they had eight stimulus plans back in the '90s? Why did the Treasury secretary under FDR say, "We spent all of this money and it didn't work" seven years into the New Deal if this is such a great program?
[...]
HANNITY: I don't think anyone could make the case that FDR's plan, New Deal, actually saved us from the Depression. I don't think that the stimulus that the Japanese government spent in the '90s actually saved them from their economic slowdown; it actually hurt them. Why do we seem to be batting our heads against the wall and wanting to revisit things that have failed in the past?
From the January 27 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: David, I believe in free-market capitalism.
DAVID BOIES (attorney): Right. I do, too.
HANNITY: $1.1 trillion. You know, historically, FDR's Treasury secretary said seven years into spending, [Henry] Morgenthau, he said it didn't work. It didn't work for Japan. It hasn't worked in --
BOIES: Well, Japan didn't try it.
HANNITY: They had eight stimulus plans.
From the January 23 edition of Hannity:
GIULIANI: And if -- if you think you're going to get your way out of this recession by all kinds of social programs, welfare programs, you're just going to make it much worse.
HANNITY: Well, in the 10 years that the Japan -- the Japanese economy was suffering in the '90s, they had eight separate stimulus packages that created, in their history, massive debt. It was unprecedented.
GIULIANI: Right.
HANNITY: And it didn't work. And you're right, historically --
GIULIANI: And the actions of the New Deal, which may have had other reasons for them, did not work from the point of view of solving the Depression. In fact, by 1936, '37, '38, the Depression was arguably just as bad as it was in 1929.
HANNITY: Yeah, it's true.
From the January 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And all of this, this trillion-dollar stimulus, this deficit, annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, that's being tacked on top of the certain bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare. Massive debt that cannot be repaid. Got us where we are just two months ago. And yet everybody seems to be clapping their hands: "Yeah, yeah, we got a stimulus coming, man. We're gonna get out of this."
We're quintupling our problem. This is so obviously stupid and we've got a guy who's trying to replicate FDR here. We've got the Great Depression, the Japanese economy in the '90s as a guide. We know this public works spending does not work.
CLAIM: Economic recovery bill amounts to spending more than $200K per job created
A January 15 "Stimulus Quick Facts" press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee falsely asserted that "President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job." Both Limbaugh and Hannity have echoed this false talking point. But by calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the recovery bill by the estimated number of jobs created or saved -- and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs -- Hannity and Limbaugh joined other media figures in ignoring other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and investments in education, health, and public safety.
Moreover, economists, including Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have presented another criticism of the claim. In a January 24 post on The American Prospect's Beat the Press blog, Baker wrote: "The Republicans have become fond of saying that President Obama's stimulus package will cost $275,000 for every job created. The media have been typically derelict in simply reporting this number without making any assessment to evaluate it -- as though readers in their spare time are supposed to determine whether it is accurate or not." Baker continued:
Okay, let's do the reporters' work for them. First, where do the Republicans get this number? They divide the the $825 billion cost of the stimulus by 3 million jobs that President Obama had originally pledged.
Their arithmetic is right but both numbers are wrong. First, the projections from the Obama team is that their package will create 4 million jobs, not 3 million. Furthermore, it is important to note that this over 2 years, not one year.
The cost is also wrong, or at least misleading. If we assume that the stimulus will work as planned, then it will boost GDP by approximately 1.5 times the amount of spending or $620 billion a year. If GDP rises by this amount, then it will translate into roughly $155 billion a year in higher taxes/lower spending than if we didn't do the stimulus. This is money that should be subtracted from the cost to the taxpayers.
So, if net out the increased revenue from the growth generated by the stimulus we end up with a 2-year cost of $515 billion which will generate roughly 8 million job-years. That comes to about $65k per job year, less than one-fourth of the Republicans' number.
Similarly, in his January 25 New York Times column, Krugman wrote, "As the debate over President Obama's economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan's opponents aren't arguing in good faith. ... The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts."
From the January 28 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: This Heritage article, "Why Government Spending Doesn't Stimulate Economic Growth," I found it. Found it on their website, AskHeritage.org. They are producing new information and analysis on these spending bills daily.
For example, if an $800 billion stimulus plan is approved and 3.7 million jobs are really created, that's about $217,000 per job. Now, I know that everybody who gets a new job under this plan is not going to get paid $217,000, so where the hell is the rest of it going?
The SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Program. If that's approved, that effectively puts more kids in America on government health insurance than in private insurance. And it, by the way, classifies kids as up to 30 years of age. Now these are facts.
From the January 26 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: They're going to spend more in a week than they spend usually in a year, Dick.
DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): That's right.
HANNITY: And they're going --
MORRIS: It's incredible.
HANNITY: -- if, on the high side, we reached their job-creation number of 4 million, that's going to cost $217,000 to get that job.
MORRIS: Yeah. And we're not going to do that.
A January 23 "Leader Alert" from House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) office claimed that the economic recovery bill "could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)." At least one Republican senator has made similar claims. Limbaugh and Hannity have embellished this claim, asserting that the language of bill contains $4.19 billion going directly to ACORN. In fact, the bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding, and it requires that the $4.19 billion it allocates for "neighborhood stabilization activities" be distributed through competitive processes. Moreover, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis wrote on The Huffington Post that "ACORN isn't getting any of this money" because "we aren't eligible for it in the first place."
From the January 27 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: What do I think about this stimulus? It's like my brilliant proposal yesterday. Why do we have to have this money washed by the money launderers in Washington? Why don't they just let them keep -- people who are producing it keep it and stimulate the economy themselves? Why does it have to go to Washington for these bigwigs to sit around and ponder who's going to get it? Do you know that in the Obama stimulus package, $4.19 billion is going to ACORN? Obama's community organizing -- you -- would somebody tell me what the stimulus is in that?
Oh, it's not called "ACORN," it's called "neighborhood stabilization programs." Now, would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill -- and there was a Sam Hill; I looked it up -- would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill $4.19 billion to a voter-fraud organization has to do with stimulus?
From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: If this stimulus package is passed, it's only going to make things worse. "Well how could you say that, Hannity? Thirty-five percent of this is tax cuts. You conservatives say you want tax cuts." Well, if you define tax cuts as giving a check to people who don't pay taxes. I actually define that as a new welfare program. That is a big part of this stimulus package. How many of you know that in this stimulus package, $4.19 billion to ACORN. You know, the group that could be eligible for billions of dollars as they have -- $4.19 billion to quote, "neighborhood stabilization activities.
[...]
HANNITY: I look at this as smother the private sector in terms of a stimulus package. I don't see this as a stimulus package and when I look at the tax cuts, as you point out have historically gotten us out of recessions, in this plan they're anemic. They don't cut corporate tax rates, they don't cut capital gains tax rates. It's a lifeline that the private sector I think needs -- you know, that they need to stabilize. They need to invest. They need job growth. They're the ones that create jobs, and I think they're using this to advance a political agenda. You know, $4 billion for ACORN? I mean, even the Congressional Budget Office, the so-called gold standard, says it's not going to work, Neil, so what's our worst-case scenario here?
Limbaugh's and Hannity's sway on the media
The congruity between Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and the Republicans' attacks on the economic recovery package may also impact press coverage of the debate on the economic recovery bill. Indeed, on January 29, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Limbaugh on the economic recovery package in which he offered his own "Bipartisan Stimulus" plan for the economy. Limbaugh's op-ed drew praise from CNBC host Erin Burnett, who said Limbaugh had "serious things to say" and offered "interesting ideas," such as "cutting the corporate tax" and "slashing capital gains [taxes]." Unmentioned by Burnett were the numerous economists who do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly "serious" or effective methods for stimulating the economy. In addition, on January 29, under the headline "Limbaugh Wants Meeting With Obama," Time editor-at-large Mark Halperin stated on his Time.com website, The Page: "The talk radio king says Thursday he wants to personally present a stimulus proposal to the president." Halperin frequently publishes snippets of Limbaugh's commentary on his Time.com website, The Page.
In June 2008, The New York Times Magazine published a lengthy profile of Limbaugh, written by a reporter who said of his subject: "I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him."
NBC News managing editor and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams has previously said, "I think it's my duty to listen to Rush," adding: "I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due." As Media Matters noted at the time, Limbaugh was repeatedly featured on the MSNBC and CNBC programs Williams hosted before Williams became Nightly News anchor. In 2006, Limbaugh was one of the first persons featured on The CBS Evening News' short-lived "Free Speech" segment, in which he attacked unnamed Americans who did not conform to his definition of "patriotism." In February 2007, ABC News highlighted Limbaugh as an "observer" who "questioned" what then-presidential candidate Joe Biden meant when he described Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Unmentioned by ABC News was Limbaugh's history of racially charged comments, including comments about Obama.
Hannity also enjoys the attention of mainstream media personalities. ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio program on April 15, 2008, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening about his "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground." Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was "taking notes right now," and followed through on Hannity's suggestion at the debate (though he later denied that Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning).
Hannity has hosted other prominent journalists as well. In October 2006, Halperin appeared on Hannity's radio program and agreed wholeheartedly with his host that "the liberal media does exist" and that the "old media is liberal." Halperin told Hannity that conservatives have "[e]very incentive to listen to your program, to go on the Drudge Report, because when they read The New York Times, or listen to ABC, they just feel alienated, like these organizations are out to get them." According to a Nexis search, CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes at least five times since 2004 to discuss politics or his books. And on January 28, Hannity hosted ABC Good Morning America co-host Chris Cuomo to discuss the economic recovery package.
And don't forget, people didn't get in FDR's way during WWII.
They didn't? Republicans actually did get in FDR's way during WWII, they didn't want us to get involved, at all. They were isolationists to the extreme. I hope you were just kidding about what you wrote above.
They certainly did get in the way.
Hitler was their kind of guy, after all.
I don't know about that, but they didn't want anything to do with the war across the ocean, until we were attacked, and even at that time, they tried to make folks believe that FDR knew about it, and let it happen so we would enter WWII. Sounds like some other whackos I've heard talk about Bush and 9/11.
The isolationists were BOTH parties. The America First organization was made of many parties merged together.
hence... Hannbaugh
Three's a crowd.
there is another poster on here that if they joined it would be the tax misinformation quadrangle of the colon.
To mis-quote Albert Steptoe from the British comedy show "Steptoe and Son": "Don't trust them!! If this lot try to sell you a talking Parrot make sure you stick your hand up it's rear end to make sure there isn't a tape recorder up there!!"
or a fart machine up their bottom
sounds like the dick cheatme and baby bush relationship
Is there a bumper sticker/forum signature image that goes with this?
Probably--but I'm glad I haven't seen it; I would need steel wool to scrub the image out of my brain.
Oh yes, these paragons of poop were warning everyone about the impending housing bubble created by all those bad mortgages, weren't they? Not.
Now they're on and on about yet another thing they no nothing about.
...THESE paragons of poop...meaning Barney Frank and Co., who opposed reform for Fannie and Freddie every time it was brought up? I certainly agree.
Do your homework.
What? Fannie and Freddie were the entire cause of the collapse?
Wake up you know nothing.
Can you read? Who said they were the entire cause?
But thanks for acknowledging their complicity.
You failed to note any other cause, what else does the wizened Least Enthusiastic Member of our Community want his reader to think? That the Republican 106th Congress created this deregulated environment in which bundled mortgages could be sold as guaranteed commodities?
Not likely.
You could have mentioned the GOP Guts America Act, as well. AKA the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The GOP Guts America Act was designed to keep regulators from controlling new financial tools described as credit "swaps." These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages bundled up and sold as securities. Under the law, neither the SEC nor the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.
Don't talk about complicity if you are ideologically incapable of taking responsibility for Phil Gramm and CO. writing the actual law that enabled FM & FM.
Democrats were complicit, thanks for agreeing. Republicans deserved to be booted out.
The banks or others holding the Credit Default Swaps can eat them. It's their gamble. Same goes for the securitized mortgages. There ARE banks that didn't load up on these instruments. Wells Fargo and several other bigs, and most small banks.
Don't bail the poorly-run banks. Let their more prudent competition reap the benefit. We're throwing good money (pixel-money, that is) after bad!
And stop assuming that anybody that isn't in lock-step with "Progressives" is a Republican.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
Now it all makes sense. Libertarians are the inbred cousins of conservatives.
Your, "go to Hell, America" mentality is ignorant, yet easily explained by your twisted political ideology.
Consumer confidence is key right now, Confidence and flowing credit. Let banks fall one, two, three and consumers and creditors will be too skittish to put their money out there. Capitalism thrives on a stable market, in large part it works best when faced with predictable outcomes, to have financial institutions crashing left and right would create a chaotic environment inhospitable to investment and too treacherous for entrepreneurs to take even the smallest risk.
While do nothing Libertarians and Republicans throw their partisan hissies over the scope of government, the rest of us who are willing to work out common sense solutions are dragged down by your prissy insistence that you have any serious answers. You don't. We tried your way and conservative economics, once again, like 1929, proved to be nothing more than a cautionary tale that belongs in text books as examples of primitive social customs.
As to complicity, yes, there are conservative Democrats too. Don't kid yourself though, deregulation is purely a conservative fetish.
Be kind to Lemoc, Roundhouse. She only knows what Rush & Sean tell her. Which is that FM & FM are the primary cause of our economic problems.
Well, Henpecker, go ahead and buy all the bad paper you want then. Or don't you know that YOU are FM and FM now?
C'mon, give us your take on what Fanny and Freddie should be for.
Why don't YOU extricate your cranium from your anal cavity, dumbass?
...that was funny....in the eighth grade. When you get your GED, don't hesitate to demonstrate your next level.
Make sure you pay attention when tcall20043320 does demonstrate his/her next level. You'll learn something!
...you'll be standing there w/your Etcha Sketch...
Riddle me this. Before 2007, democrats didn't control those committees, and we are supposed to be, and are, the party of regulation. Which party, between republicans and democrats, don't like regulation, and would rather let the free market decide things?
Dude. You have to look much further back than 2007 to find the root of our current problem. In 1998, they expanded health care for "more kids", in 1999 (i think), they decided to let banks cross over to get into other business. In mid-1990's, they pushed to get "more people" into houses. It took 8 years before these bad, bad decisions (by both administration, Clinton's and Bush's) to explode the country. BLAME CLINTON AND BUSH.
Ya got me there, Mag. Republicans failed miserably any number of places on their watch, notably spending, and failing to regulate securitized mortgages and derivatives in general (assuming derivatives CAN be regulated other than by letting the dumb ba$%^*ds that hold them just eat 'em--why bail them?)
Republicans got booted for being spineless. Rewarding banks for incompetence (Citibank) and punishing their better-run competition (Wells Fargo--they were ORDERED to bend over and take the bailout money, so all big banks would be in the same boat) is assinine.
Getting regulation right on Wall Street is one thing. Overregulating everything else is quite another.
...and if Fanny and Freddy are going to buy every worthless piece of paper that comes down the pipe, will the present administration allow that paper to move into mainstream capital markets again? I hope not. Stop the damage THERE. If we're going to treat home ownership as a RIGHT, and subsidize it endlessly, then let's let that bad paper stay there and let's deal with it there.
...ya oughta see some of the HUD homes that are being cleaned out and boarded up--the people had to work at it to do so much damage...
It's their ideology. Republicans put all their trust in "businessmen", and push for as much deregulation and elimination of oversight as they can.
When Reagan was in office, he deregulated the Savings & Loans. The greedheads predictably and corruptly snatched up every dollar they could. That foolish policy cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions, back in the 80's. A black eye for Reagan? On the contrary, Newt called it "defunding the left" by helping bankrupt America, the country (THEY said it was just "the government"), and this was GOOD, because it would prevent spending money on starving kids and other undeserving riff-raff. The money was taken and secured instead by the very wealthy, as always, and the taxpayers paid the price.
W Bush was no different, only this time TRILLIONS were "redistributed" from average Americans to the very wealthy. They either thought there would be no downside for the country, or that the downside would be GOOD in that it would prevent any safety nets at all for those in need, or they just didn't care, as long as the elites got fabulously more wealthy.
And make no mistake, this policy of "redistribution of wealth" had NOTHING to do with "free markets", and everything to do with bought-and-paid-for GOVERNMENT policy that gave every advantage to wealth and none to average working folk.
This time, they've embezzled so much, we may not survive as a nation. And they don't care, they've GOT "theirs".
Thanks, Mary59. When I first saw the cartoon, I thought it was Mallard Fillmore. But then I quickly realized it couldn't be Mallard Fillmore for two reasons:
1. It's funny.
2. It makes a point.
And nobody will ever, EVER accuse Mallard Fillmore of either of those things.
At least, some day, we can be sure that as the worms are devouring the bloated, fetid carcasses of Mrs. Limbaugh and Hannity, Franklin Delano Roosevelt will still be considered a great president.
A great president? Don't you mean a president who did little to nothing to stop the genocide of approximately 6 million European Jews?
Little to nothing? Last I checked he entered WWII and american forces helped overthrow the third reich. Had he not got us into that war that 6 million would have been more like 12 million and counting.
And while we're at it, let's take note that it was obstructionist republicans who wanted the country to sit out that war.
are you crazy ?
Apparently, he is.
just more faith based frontal lobe activity being converted into incoherant text. typical right wing verbage/garbage/BS
Actually, he is your president as well, just as George W. Bush was mine.
He has kept open the faith based office, but alas, he is putting new rules into effect that folks are not liking, as in, they can't discriminate in their hiring practices.
Ok. I knew all that--just wanted to see if you knew.
And...thanks for a civil answer.
Please explain yourself in detail. Magnolia concurred with me, 'though expanding on President Obama's stance more fully.
Can you summon resources enough to write...maybe TWO or more sentences?
don't take offense as I do not want to have to come back thru the airloc but, you sort of sound like HAL the computer.
Damn you're good. You got original stuff, not the knee-jerk, conditioned responses usually heard here.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
Oh, please shut up.
What are you talking about?
I'll risk repeating myself from another post:
Hannity is a drop-out from NYU and Adelphi (I taught several years there). All he was interested in was radio. He liked the sound of his own voice so he wanted to "get hisseff on the radio". Limbaugh flunked out of Southeast Missouri State and couldn't even pass a ballroom dance course. Michael Savage (Weiner) has a PhD in Nutritional Ethnomedicine and degrees in Herbal Medicine and Homeopathy.
Nuff said.
So who needs to go to college? That's for elites, not the folks.
BTW, I thought that Hannity went to UC Santa Barbara? If not, what in the world was he doing on that radio station there-- the one the ACLU got his job back on?
there is no record of Hannity even finishing high school and his attendance on the property of NYU was to get his GED. Locally, a few kids tell us they went to college and not explaining they offer GED diplomas on such campuses.
I found no accreditation for the now defunct St Pius high school
I wonder how far he could have gone if he did not have thin lips and bad knees?
...maybe sing in a choir-- perfect pitch, flawless cuts and breaks--like this one here. Of course, when it's a monotone chant, the voice technicals are easier.
St. Pius? Figures...Pius X, the rabid conservative.
Can you name a Pope who wasn't conservative? I mean, seriously...
Pope Algore I, Pope Oda Planet.
Wow. You really have no clue.
Your voice is perfect pitch for this choir.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN.
I am in agreement with virtually all libertarian principles including abolishing the illegal phoney war on drugs. I do think you might be smoking way too much of your own poop though.
..sounds like you've smoked enuff to know...
Bill Gates is not a good example, Ogcliberty. He dropped out of Harvard, he did not flunk out. He also accomplished something positive and highly useful. He has also helped many, many less fortunate people realize their potential. Bill Gates is an example for all of us. Yes, there are many non-degree holding great Americans out there, but not these hate-filled, opinionated, blow-hard loud-mouths who are only interested in their own unearned power. Their only "talent" is in self-promotion. A college diploma is no substitute for talent, but at least those who DO attend a university have a better chance at exposure to ideas that MAY be helpful to their fellow citizens. A sound education, either in or outside of academia is better than ignorance. Stupidity is never an option.
You see no difference between dropping out of the number 1 college in the country in order to create a technological superpower and flunking out of high school to go spew hatred on our airwaves? Really?
The example of Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard has been overused, and it isn't nearly as illustrative as those who use it would hope.
it would be interesting to go back and see limbaugh's exact words on clinton's tax increases on the rich in his first term. not a single republican voted for it [and they used it to hammer democrats in the 94 congressional elections], and they all predicted disaster. but the opposite happened.
Remember that Limbaugh wrote a book called The Way Things Ought to Be. Then, a few years later, when the Clinton Administration, contrary to everything he predicted, was a huge success, he wrote another book called See, I Told You So.
Moral to the story: Hannity and Limbaugh can say whatever the hell they want- the future will vindicate them, because they'll make up the future just like they are currently making up the present and re-inventing the past.
Limbaugh can write books ? or is it just a collection of his rants ?
It's just a collection of his rants. Of course Limbaugh doesn't actually write books, any more than Hannity and Coulter do. They hire ghost writers to string together taped rants from their radio shows into a semi-coherent narrative, slap a big photo of themselves draped in the flag on the cover, and wait for the badly-misnamed "think tanks" to buy up the books by the gross to give away and fundraisers and to make them look like they are best-sellers.
the first draft of all his books were written on the packing paper in the boxes of his Oxy shipments. I would buy his books if they were available on a soft 2 ply paper in roll form and perforated for ease of use.
"Halperin told Hannity that conservatives have '[e]very incentive to listen to your program, to go on the Drudge Report, because when they read The New York Times, or listen to ABC, they just feel alienated, like these organizations are out to get them.'"
Conservatives can only take so much reality. They need a quick pick-me-up after seeing the consequences of conservative leadership reported day after day.
But "conservatives" doesn't mean anything anymore...it now refers to a cultic group of dickish thugs that have their own reality. When reality starts to creep in they have to run back to Rush or Sean for a dose of this bizaro world.
that describes the Nazi SS
The truth is the reason we are in this mess is conservative methods that have failled time and time again. For your information both trickle down ecconomics and communism have the same major flaw and that is they do not take in to account human greed. Comunism a form of consevitivism fails to consider greed in any person while trickle down ecconomics relies on those who can afford to be greedy not being greedy. The only proven way to improve the ecconomy is to get the money to the working class and the poor as the new deal did. You need to learn true history not the lies of the right wing crowd with its leaders Limbaugh, Hannity, and the others who can not tell the truth about what works if their lives depended on it and they may well depend on the truth if things do not get better.
“You need to learn true history not the lies of the right wing crowd with its leaders Limbaugh, Hannity, and the others who can not tell the truth about what works if their lives depended on it and they may well depend on the truth if things do not get better.”
Said by progressiveright, which I agree, but take it a step further, much of the National Security Secrets are nothing more than cover up in secret money deals that those political persons do not want the average person to know.
As time moves forward many more American’s will be demanding any and all secrets are opened in the same time frame as issued. By that it means secrets will be revealed in the same life time as they are issued.
So what? That means that you or me that have been living during those Presidents and Congressional times that have made such secret action decisions can look back in hind sight to see simply if it was justified actions. Done with Legal or criminal intentions to really induce freedom or profiteer in war is the question. If you follow the Bush family methods it is war and banking corruption since world war two…
For me there is a fear that many, many deeply connected political families Democratic or Republican are seeped in covert activities that breached domestic laws, treaties or other International agreements, political actions done for family fortunes rather than public good, all which relate to job creation or result in economic catastrophes, like now, and takes a long time to develope such confusion with opened ended uncertainty. All this is highlighted by the controversy in debate as to whether water boarding is torture. Which it is and horrible for those accused that will likely destroy the Republican Party because they own this one for sure.
You've got to be kidding me. The past couple of week, the republican party reverted to their tried and true strategy of melodramatics and whining. Even though the republicans lost the election big time, they still want their way. The republicans are a bunch of spoiled brats.
Whining how? As in, representing what's actually going on in a true light, or listening to people lie about it? Because, as far as I'm concerned, this isn't "whining" it's called setting the record straight.
What's even better is when Republicans don't get their way. They would rather p^ss and moan about FDR or Clinton or Carter than do something. Petulant little pricks they are, they would rather let the country go down in flames than admit that they don't know sh*t about how to clean up their own mess.
Hey "proud" -
Just this week I heard Vannity repeat that Bill Ayers "wrote on 9/11" that he wished he could have done more. The attempt was to suggest to the gullible that Bill wrote this in response to the events of the day. In our reality-based world, however, Bill wrote that some weeks or months earlier. Do you understand the concept of "lead time" in print publishing? By sheer coincide, the magazine was published on 9/11. Did you fall for this still-repeated LIE, and if so, are you "proud" of being repeatedly duped?
Fool me once...
All you need to know about conservatives in one easy graph...
...was just wondering how Pelosi's "500 MILLION unemployed" works into this graph. Shouldn't the green line be at least vertical, or...?
And she's third in line...
First of all, she's second in line. We covered that little fact yesterday (count them, VP, Speaker, that's 2).
Second of all, you know, as well as I do, that she meant 500,000. Stop being obtuse. If we grabbed onto every single mis-speak by Bush, we'd be here forever.
Except, of course, that the majority of America DID grab onto EVERY SINGLE mis-speak by Bush. Anyone who doesn't understand the double standard in this country... I don't know, I'm just sorry for you guys.
There's a big difference between an occasional mis-speak and the repeated examples from Bush. There's also a difference between this mistake by Pelosi and some of the glaring errors that demonstrate that Bush is slow-witted and ill-educated.
For simple errors, typing or mis-speaking, they should not be mentioned. When a pattern is established, then they should be mentioned.
Except, of course, we didn't grab onto every single time Bush misspoke, which was virtually every time he opened his mouth. There certainly is a double standard in this country; the "liberal media" is a myth.
..got ridda Bush, arguably for the same thing.
And, since Obama hasn't stepped into the Presidency yet, it remains 1-2-3.
..didn't bother you that Pelosi ("let's get off those fossil fuels and onto natural gas") was #2 a short while ago. Most peoople know what a fossil fuel is, especially if they have a major stake in those projects, like Pelosi. What does PELOSI read, besides old copies of the Berkeley Barb?
I'd ask what you read, but it's pretty clear that you don't. You just listen to Rush and repeat verbatum.
Oh, and sorry to break it to ya, but Obama stepped up to the plate before he ever took the oath of office. He's gonna prove to be another FDR with a dash of Lincoln. Have fun with your next 40 year hiatus out of power.
..don't follow ya, Snoopy. Registered Libertarian here; never been IN power.
Y'ALL have fun on your l'il 'ol collective for the next 40 years, y'hear?
And have fun explaining the idiocy of the experiment to your grandchildren.
did ya hear about the individual that thought it was a bleeding hemroid but it turned out to be a cerebral thrombosis?
Did he still make it to his Senate Majority Leader job?
wrong guy. he/she has posted on this thread a bunch and has probably owned a car that was a LEMon and it could be Orange Colored
Dude... Would you mind putting the recession of '87 on that graph? Or the recession of '82? Or maybe, just maybe, even the recession of '29-37ish?
Or would that make your graph a little less Democrat-useful?
The graph is "recent" recessions. If he put older recessions on it, it would not be a graph of recent recessions! And since they changed the way they count unemployed, older recessions are not directly comparable.
Or '81-'82, or '74-'75, '59-'60?
Sheesh.
Wow. Bush did a good job getting out of the Clinton recession.
Where's the Carter recession?
In your imagination.
21% prime was imaginary. Boy, you ARE easy.
Here in Cleveland, right wing propagandists have had a radio talk monopoly for nearly twenty years. Most Republicans I know get all their (mis)information from radio talk and from Fox News. Since the lies have such a great effect on voting behavior, these talkers are committing massive election fraud. I listen occasionally to find out who advertises on their shows so I know who to boycott. The most right-wing station in Cleveland is WTAM, which carries, Rush, Glenn Beck, and a local ninth-grade dropout who is said to have more opinions than IQ points. He mixes sports talk with information from the Limbaugh show, which is on earlier in the day. The station also carries games from the Cleveland Indians and the Cleveland Cavaliers, so I boycott them, too. Many sports franchises around the country allow their games to be carried on the same stations that carry fraudulent Republican hate talk. Besides screwing citizens by demanding tax breaks for new stadiums, sports teams are supporting the fraud perpetrated by these right-wing talkers. I wonder if there is a single professional athlete anywhere in the country who has the integrity to refuse interviews with broadcasters from these stations.
I turn to Medai Matters to connect the dots. It's obvious that Limbaugh and Hannity are sportscasters masquerading as economists. They have neither the analytical skills to do the math nor the intellectual skills to comprehend their own lack of understanding. They do not harbor the capacity to doubt their own assumptions and investigate the facts.
What I want to know is "Who is feeding them their lines?" I frequently see them reference the disinformation machine that is Heritage and AEI.
Directly confronting the buffoons is literally a fool's errand. You are building them up. They are literally, "carrying water for the Republican Party" as well as the corporate donors.
What I see is that Heritage and AEI are able to hide and the self-rationalizing echo chamber does their work. I can almost hear the producer in the IFB read the AEI talking point, "cut corporate taxes."
I recently heard Limbaugh take a call from a guy who was obviously a Republican operative attempting to mask his education. He started by dropping his 'g and using single syllable words, but when he hit the talking points, he was quite erudite. He did not claim to be reading a position, but claimed to be giving his opinion. Having written speeches and screenplays, I'm quite familiar with natural speech rhythms.
"It's obvious that Limbaugh and Hannity are sportscasters masquerading as economists. They have neither the analytical skills to do the math nor the intellectual skills to comprehend their own lack of understanding."
I don't think you're fully with us on the dark side, yet. First, sports journalism is vastly superior to political journalism. Second, nearly the entire mainstream media, not just Rush and Hannity, are lacking in any expertise of any kind.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann?
I was going to say Olby/Maddow, but I think Maddow is more the liberal equivalent of Michelle Malkin.
I'm sure that you can show us where Olberman, Moore, and Maddow lie as much as Hannity, Limbaugh, and Malkin right? Oh, that's right, because you can't.
Let me construct my own truth first, and I can then proceed to present "Exhibit A."
... unless AnotherAmerican beats me to it.
Anyway, that's who I consider to be the "liberal equivalent" to the conservative icons. The only one I really couldn't find an equivalent for was Michael Savage, Ph.D.
As you all know I'm not in the Democrat camp or the Republican camp - to me they're the same things under different labels. I think we're now witnessing the first steps to seeing the Democrat Party get drunk on its own power, while the Republicans are either in denial, in withdrawal, or suffering from a hangover. See, as the Democrats get corrupted by power, the Republicans will lie their way back to controlling Washington, where they too will get drunk on their own power once again.
When's the last time Limbaugh and Hannity put the Republicans on the hot seat? When's the last time Olbermann and Maddow put the Democrats on the hot seat?
"I'm not in the Democrat camp or the Republican camp - to me they're the same things under different labels." -- ouch, bad timing. Eight years of Clinton and eight years of Bush have happened in your lifetime. If you look real close, you might detect a difference.
The fact that democrats and republicans govern substantially differently is even more obvious than the fact that tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs.
They're not equivalent, not even close. Why? It doesn't matter who they do, or don't put in the so called hot seat, it's how they report. When you bring to me the rampant lies and misinformation spewed forth by Olberman and Maddow compared to what Limbaugh and Hannity and Malkin do, then I might consider them equal, but they're not.
If Limbaugh, Hannity, and Malkin made actual arguments based on facts, with back up proof, and never had a democrat or liberal on there, would be fine with me, it's their lying wherein lies the difference.
For someone who claims to not be a republican or a democrat, you do seem to tote the conservative line, with a lot of the times quoting your hero Boortz.
That you can't tell the difference between Clinton and Bush tells me that you need to read more of what happened during each of their times in office, or maybe stop being ignorant. Was Clinton the "best" ever? Nah, I don't think so, but to even compare him to Bush is insanely ignorant.
"Geez the whinning that leftists do"
WHINNING?
Proud Conservatard can't even spell. I guess it's all that home skoolin'!
What's really fitting is watching Steele under investigation for fraud. Typical republican leadership, that.
The only thing that is similar between Maddow and Malkin are their gender. One is a fascist, lying, intellectually challenged hypocrite and Maddow is strong, honest and very opinionated but also very polite in her challenges to those who appear on her show with whom she disagrees politically.
Malkin has no need for facts. She makes up whatever she needs to get attention. nothing can stand up to examination.
Hannity, Limbaugh and Malkin are propaganda merchants who very seldom let facts get in the way of ultra-conservative dogma.
Show me a case in which Maddow had claimed that a decorated war vet received a medal for a self inflicted wound. Show us where KO sits and bellows pseudo-patriotic jingoism with a coward like Ted Nugent.
Totally agree, there is no comparison between Malkin and Maddow. And I say that as someone who simply cannot stand listening to Maddow; her voice is so squeaky, and when she giggles at whatever unfunny thing Kent Jones feels like saying it's like nails across the chalkboard.
But she isn't a liar and she doesn't conduct BS interviews with liars, so no, she's not a thing like Malkin.
"her voice is so squeaky, and when she giggles at whatever unfunny thing Kent Jones feels like saying it's like nails across the chalkboard."
As opposed to Mooselina Palin's whose voice could curdle milk.....never mind that stupid sh*t that comes out of that mouth.
I don't argue with you about Palin. I can't stand listening to her, either. But Palin and Malkin being grating on the nerves doesn't make Rachel Maddow Edward R Murrow.
My BIGGEST problem with Maddow isn't even her voice or exaggerated giggling. It's the fact that almost every single one of her shows (which follows Olbermann's) just repeats the main talking points Olbermann just went through. In short, it's BORING and REPETITIVE. Maybe that's Olbermann pulling the strings because he doesn't want to get shown up, I don't know. But it's a problem.
Reminds me of Limbaugh and Hannity.
Except...
Where are the lies? That you can't see a difference, doesn't surprise me at all.
Malin is extremely deluded. She looks in the mirror and a tall blonde blue eyed Aryan woman looks back at her. If the conservatives she admires so much had their way, she would be working in a massage parlor.
MALKIN, not Malin.
You sound as weirdly strident as Olbermann and Maddow, which really dilutes their credibility. Have you noticed this?
LEMOC As far as I am cocerned OLBERMANN and MADOW have a ton more of credibility than EL FLUSH BO and SHEAR INSANITTY. Those last two clowns are nothing more than PROPAGANDA mouthpieces for the REPUBLICAN PARTY and the NEO-CONSERVATIVES running the party.
I might let her do my nails
60 days prior to the Presidential election the last remaining "liberal" radio shows were eliminated in favor of "financial news" - sounds like what just happened in Wash DC. - here in Pittsburgh
One was local and the other Thom Hartman
The Quinn & Rose show echoes Limbaugh, Hannity et al and plays nothing but clips from Fox News.
The corporate media structure appears to have established a propaganda arm that makes their case rather than the case of "average americans" - How else can you explain the Bush had a 22 percent approval rating when he left office.
Who are those people and why would they still support someone who wrecked this country ?
Thom Hartmann just the last week or two listed profitable liberal talk show stations that were bought or otherwise replaced by religious or other formats. These typically experienced ratings drop of up to 75%, IIRC. That's the reality of the corporate media. They'd rather lose money than allow an opposing view.
I thought corporations were required by law to always act in the stockholders' interest. But maybe some of these were privately held.
I believe that 22% approval rating is WAY, WAY too high. I think it was more like 2%. Hitlers approval ratings were 23% when he was set on fire. Hey, I can make stuff up too.
Yur funny, man!
Want to really lose your lunch? Take a moment and imagine THIS:
PRESIDENT Rush Limbaugh. (No dancing at his inauguration.)
VICE PRESIDENT Sean Hannity. (Dropped out of the race for President.)
SECRETARY OF STATE Michael Savage. (Legally changed his name. Expert in foreign policy due to his degree in Ethnomedicine.)
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Lou Dobbs. ("If they can't get in, they can't hurt us.")
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY Glenn Beck. (Gee, whiz, guys, so many hard questions. Ha, ha, lemme get back to ya.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL Bill O'Reilly. (O.K., who's gonna take on Media Matters?)
Any additional suggestions?
I've got to question your choice of O'Reilly as AG. Everyone knows that with his "combat" experience he'd be a better fit as Secretary of Defense.
he does have legal experience though. He sued Al Franken and lost
O'Reilly should be secretary of education. He used to be a high school teacher, supposedly.
What offices do Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Frank Luntz hold?
Hopefully, some day they'll hold no offices and cells will hold them.
Ummm....last time I checked, Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska. Does that count as an "office?"
She's governor of the biggest welfare state in the US.
And, as she showed repeatedly during the campaign and continues to show, she is dumber than a box of rocks.
Lemoc, do you know what the indigenous people of Alaska's plight is? I eagerly await your response. In the meantime, I'll keep flagging your posts for trolling. Mahalo!
PRESIDENT Nancy Pelosi (500 million U.S. unemployed. Gotta quit those fossil fuels and get on natural gas).
VICE PRESIDENT Chuckie Shooma--biggest recipient of Bernie Madoff campaign contributions.
TREASURY SECRETARY Tim Geitner--was gonna screw Treasury out of 01 and 02 taxes...oh, wait--he IS your choice for Treasury.
... there's plenty more....
Jeezus, you're stupid.
..love those Junior-high cutlows...keep 'em comin'...yur killin' me...
Steele, token leader of the republican party, under investigation for fraud.
Limbaugh, real leader of the republican party, guilty of drug trafficking and draftdodgeing.
Coulter, bad smelling republican now under investigation for voter fraud in connecticut. How stupid was that?
Wanna play? This list of Republican Criminals is impressive.
I get it just fine--you want to play games. That's OK with me; but here you are playing a game you cannot win. And of course you are aware that there are Left and Right Libertarians (or maybe not--or maybe you don't care--or maybe you think you can hide behind a label--something most Libertarians are doing in my experience). We've seen your posts. We don't have to be mind readers to know what you really represent. And I certainly don't need the likes of you to do my thinking for me. Thank you--I'll pass. And of course you could provide a link proving the list of Democratic criminals is just as long (or maybe not) I don't really care; because exhanges with trolls are, well, pretty much a waste of time.
What I represent is my own freedom. What I RESENT is Collectivists like yourself who talk a great compassion game as long as they can supply said compassion out of somebody else's pocket; Collectivists who at their heart hate anyone who wants to work a little harder or longer, or sacrifice or save better and are therefore "more fortunate".
Hiding behind a label--that is ALL TIME hilarious. I'm always amused that people in your camp allow yourselves the excess in comfort(s) that you have--where's your compassion for the less fortunate? And the answer is--it's a farouking sham.
Talkin' 'bout wasting time? That would be trying to teach basic arithmetic to the economic illiterates found on this site. But I make allowance for you--you're products of the NTA and NEA.
But, I concede...there are no Democrat criminals. They just designed and expanded the Social Security chain letter in total innocence. This current crisis is only a microcosm of the one coming down the road, and you haven't a clue what to do about. But you can probably just blame it on somebody else, and get away with it. At least you'll get away with it here. Talk about hiding...you and your ilk are in total denial.
I'll just take that as your concession.
My goodness--Ayn Rand thinks she is in the room; but does the room know it is experiencing such freedom? All the rest of us feel so free (should that be all caps?) now that we don't have to think for ourselves. (Collectivism? Objectivism? hah--even real libertarians understand her philosophical limitations (to use a kind word). My concession will be delivered when you prove, by providing the requested links (just as I did for you), that document that criminality and corruption among Democrats and Republicans is equal. Your rants (which border on meltdowns) and rhetoric are unconvincing and something for which I have no use. I provided the substance in the form of evidence. You have provided none.
LEMOC=NEO-CON REPUBLICAN mouthpiece.
lemoc, Im going to have to disagree with you, voting LIBERTARIAN would be just as bad as voting for the NEO CONS, both have an aversion to GOVT interference, I DONT . Go ask someone who lived in the 1930's, GOVT stimulus IS WHAT HELPED PULL US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION, CONTRARY TO WHAT FOX NEWS AND THEIR REPUBLICAN MINIONS try to tell us. If you want to vote LIBERTARIAN, go ahead,but i'll tell you now they will NEVER get a majority.
Are you actually proud of what you say?
OK! OK ! Put down the bong and step away from the bong.
Thank heaven those remain nothing more than right wing wet dreams.
I notice you didn't provide the name of that "Nobel Prize-winning economist." I wonder if he smells a bit after being pulled through your alimentary canal.
Care to share with us your source for that piece of crap information above, or are you just pulling this out of your rectal cavity?
which is another way of saying "republican lunch box"
You're wasting your time. Nobody here wants to hear those CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE facts. The numbers would confuse them. They just FEEL that this spending will save the day, and isn't FEELING what matters?
You mow my lawn 5 times a week, I'll do the same to yours. The "stimulus bill" will pay us both $100 an hour. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
That's pretty close to CBO's appraisal of the "stick-it-to-us bill".
The basic prongs of the conservative attack are:
1. Rewrite history (New Deal made the Great Depression worse).
2. Deny reality (tax breaks are awesome, but spending is worthless).
3. Repeat lies.
The mission here is to destroy the country and retake power. That's the GOP for you. Scorched earth politics. If they can't lead, nobody gets out alive.
Randy
fanagor, Truer words were never spoken.
To Philib:
Somehow the discussion of the "$4 billion going to groups such as ACORN" got cut off with you claiming I would not respond, so I felt I should respond here. I really hope you get this message. ACORN receiving money from "the government" in no way shows they can or will get money from HUD. They are the branch distributing the $4 billion being discussed. Take a piece of paper and draw a big circle. Inside it draw a much smaller circle. Label the big circle Government and the smaller circle HUD. Now right ACORN in the much larger circle but outside the smaller circle. Now you can clearly see how this works. NO ONE (INCLUDING ME) EVER CLAIMED ACORN DID NOT RECEIVE MONEY FROM GOVERNMENT GRANTS. They have not however received money from HUD nor are they eligible to get any of the $4 billion. Now prove ACORN can get any of the money from this stimulus bill. Prove that all of the money in the bill is going to go to "partisan groups that support Obama" as Dobbs claimed. Stick to facts that matter. Don't mention that ACORN got money from "the government as proof they can get more. I got money from the government in the form of grants for college. That does not mean I can get money from the government to build schools. See hwo that works?
Looks like the old Donut Effect
Military Husband, your ACORN post was concise and clear. You should forward it to WaPost or NYTimes OpEd or as guest columnist. The Military connection might be a plus in the door. Good response to this ongoing red herring. Military writers carry more weight to the right's readers (when the right doesn't bash them or question their patriotism). The Rushannities consider military and military families in lockstep agreement and as more speak out as citizens neocon ears are more likely to listen.
What I find amazing is that any sane person cares about what Hannity or Limbough think. They are just a couple of money grubbing dirt bags who would become liberals overnight if they if they could make more money doing so. And for the less sane "ditto heads" well there always have been and always will be those who make better serfs then freeman.
Fox News promotes itself as the news channel that is fair and balanced, however they seem to have an allegy to reporting the truth
Since Fox is the voice of the Republican Party (sorry, Rush), the very concept of the truth is unknown to them. Habitual exposure to lies and half-truths, the usual talking points of the Party, has rendered the staff at Fox immune to truth. As long as millions of Americans are willing to ignore the vital importance of truth, the Grand Old Party can continue to subvert public awareness. We can see it at work, even, and especially, now. It is almost sad to see such a formally powerful political party seeking the "advice" and approval of the stupidest, uninformed, and silliest individuals in the media.
Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh need to tape their mouths and sit on their hands. Only then will we get fair and balanced reporting and truth from them
eden,I agree completly with your last two posts. FOX NEWS is in reality FOX PROPAGANDA FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. LIMBAUGH AND HANNITY sre the equivalent of DR JOSEPH GOEBBLES.