Limbaugh defends AIG from "lynch mob"
SUMMARY: In recent days, Rush Limbaugh has defended AIG from a "lynch mob ... demanding heads" over the company's controversial employee retention bonuses.
During the March 17 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh -- "a great leader for conservatives" -- defended American International Group (AIG) from criticism of the company's controversial employee retention bonuses. Limbaugh declared, "A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration." Limbaugh later claimed, "This $500,000 limit on executive pay -- let me tell you why it won't work. New York City will die. New York City needs a whole bunch of people being paid a whole lot of money, so they can tax their butts off, so that the city can maintain its stupid streets, potholes, and welfare state. Without the super wealthy in New York, it's over. ... This -- it's just a populist ruse. It's just designed to people go, 'Yeah, yeah!' "
In addition, on March 16, Limbaugh challenged a caller who opposed the bonuses. The caller said, "I do agree with [President] Obama trying to get these bonuses back from the AIG execs because, I mean, that's our money." Limbaugh replied, "Let me ask you a question. ... You have a company -- let's take AIG out of this 'cause they're so emotionally charged. Let's say that the company being bailed out is the XYZ Widget Company. ... We need them to manufacture widgets and sell widgets and so forth. So why in the world -- or how do you get to the point where you're going to bail out the company, but you don't want the employees to get paid?" Limbaugh later added: "[T]his is not just executives, but executives are employees, too. And in many of these firms, Nathan, their salaries are pretty small. They work on bonuses, via contract based on merit."
From the March 17 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I want to ask all of you in this audience and those of you who are new to this program a question. Way back last fall, when all this bailout stuff started, I warned you: This isn't going to work. This is not the way to do it. This is the government asserting control. We see now what a total mess all of this has become.
Guess where we are now? We've got the administration led by President Obama and his teleprompter. His teleprompter told him to say yesterday that these AIG executives are greedy and selfish, and now what? We've got death threats being phoned in to the AIG headquarters in New York, and all this time, we've been told that it's talk radio that incites this kind of hatred. It's Limbaugh and the little Limbaughs that create all of this animosity and anger and cause people to behave in ways that are uncivil.
And the president's own teleprompter is telling him to say that these executive are greedy and selfish and this is inciting people to behavior that could lead to violence if their threats are acted out. This whole thing is a boondoggle. It is a mess brought to you by the United States government led by Democrats.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: President Obama's teleprompter tells him to say that the tired ways of the past didn't work, that we need a new way. Here we go; we've got the new way. We've got peasants with their pitchforks phoning in death threats at AIG. We have members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives sounding like communist dictators.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: This $500,000 limit on executive pay -- let me tell you why it won't work. New York City will die. New York City needs a whole bunch of people being paid a whole lot of money, so they can tax their butts off, so that the city can maintain its stupid streets, potholes, and welfare state. Without the super wealthy in New York, it's over. You might as well go get Kurt Russell in there, put a fence around the whole country, and turn it into a prison, because that's what it would be. Escape from New York, did you see the movie? That's what it would be if you start limiting the pay of people whose taxes pay the freight in that city. That's why it's never gonna happen. This -- it's just a populist ruse. It's just designed to people go, "Yeah, yeah!"
From the March 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: To North Alexander, Pennsylvania. Nathan, you're next. Great to have you here on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, how you doing, Rush?
LIMBAUGH: I'm fine. Thank you.
CALLER: Yeah, I just wanted to say my brother's going to be real jealous. He listens to you, like, all the time, and I don't think he's ever gotten on the show. But, anyway, my comment --
LIMBAUGH: What's your brother's name?
CALLER: My brother's Jason. He lives in Jacksonville, Florida.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, Jason. He lives in Jacksonville. All right. Hi, Jason. Well, his time is coming.
CALLER: Yeah. There you go, there you go. But I just wanted to say, the one thing about this -- I do agree with Obama trying to get these bonuses back from the AIG execs because, I mean, that's our money. That's the taxpayers' money. I don't think their bonuses should be funded with taxpayers' money.
LIMBAUGH: Let me ask you a question.
CALLER: That's just my thought.
LIMBAUGH: No, no, wait a second. Wait a second.
CALLER: Mm-hmm.
LIMBAUGH: I'm very serious about this, Nathan.
CALLER: OK.
LIMBAUGH: I'm very serious. You have a company -- let's take AIG out of this 'cause they're so emotionally charged. Let's say that the company being bailed out is the XYZ Widget Company.
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: We've determined that we need to bail out XYZ Widget. XYZ Widget has people who work there.
CALLER: Mm-hmm.
LIMBAUGH: We're going to bail XYZ Widget out because we need XYZ Widget to continue operating as an ongoing business.
CALLER: OK.
LIMBAUGH: We need them to manufacture widgets and sell widgets and so forth. So why in the world -- or how do you get to the point where you're going to bail out the company, but you don't want the employees to get paid?
CALLER: No. Have the employees get paid, yeah. But, I mean --
LIMBAUGH: Well, that's who this is. This is -- this is not --
CALLER: -- bonus? A bonus for tanking?
LIMBAUGH: No, this is not just executives, but executives are employees, too. And in --
CALLER: I understand that.
LIMBAUGH: -- many of these firms, Nathan, their salaries are pretty small. They work on bonuses, via contract based on merit. Now, if you're --
CALLER: I'll tell you what. I would love to have their salaries. You -- we'll switch salaries. I guarantee you, they would not be happy with my salary.
LIMBAUGH: Well, now, that's -- can I talk about that with you, too?
CALLER: OK. Go ahead. Go ahead.
LIMBAUGH: What's stopping you?
CALLER: What's stopping me from what?
LIMBAUGH: From having the kind of money that these people make, in your mind. What's stopping you from making it?
CALLER: Basically, I haven't gone back to school for it yet, to tell you the truth. And I haven't really been in that type of business for very long.
LIMBAUGH: Well --
CALLER: The main thing is --
LIMBAUGH: How old are you?
CALLER: How old am I? I'm 31 years old.
LIMBAUGH: Thirty-one. Your whole life's ahead of you. You can go back to school. If you want to earn -- what do you want to -- what would you love to earn per year? Forget the bonuses, forget anybody else. What would you like to earn?
CALLER: Honestly, it really wouldn't matter how much I earned as long as I lived comfortably.
LIMBAUGH: No, it matters, because you're upset that some of these people earn this -- you just said you'd love to have their salaries even though you don't know what they are. So, there's -- don't be embarrassed to give me a number. There's nothing --
CALLER: Oh, I would love to earn about 200, 250,000 a year. That would be perfect.
LIMBAUGH: You want to earn 200,000.
CALLER: Yeah --
LIMBAUGH: Two-fifty a year.
CALLER: -- that's right.
LIMBAUGH: Well, no, you want to earn 249,999 so you don't get the tax increase. So, you -- but, you want to earn 250. All right. Do you know what? And I mean this from the bottom of my heart, Nathan -- the only person stopping you is you. There's 250 -- he hung up. Damn it, he hung up. Right?
Nathan, if you're -- there's $250,000 out there for you, Nathan. If you really want it, you really want to earn that kind of money, it's out there. Now, it's going to -- and don't -- I'm not being insulting -- it's going to take hard work.
Rush: The irrelevant defending the incompetent.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, PIMP FOR THE CORPORATE MEDIA
Did AIG ask for Rush's help ? Maybe the fat one can give AIG a donation .
Rush, let me get this straight...
You're mad that there might be some money in the budget that isn't really needed for possible programs that are not needed. Prime example, the oft cited pig odor and waste retention program that you guys all like to rail on, mostly because you don't know what the F*** you're talking about.
Now, you're defending payouts of our tax money to AIG? Wouldn't this be a big waste of our tax money? Hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted money? Of course, but in your due course of defending these guys, you don't apparently see that.
There's a word that I'm thinking of that comes to mind, what is it? Umm, let me see, yeah, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. That is you my friend. Only outraged by what democrats do, not greedy and large corporations.
That's OK, we see right through you.
You've made an excellent point. How much was it that was in the Stimulus Bill for the National Endowment for the Arts... about 50 million? I'll bet Rush was among those crying foul over that expenditure, which is less than a third of what AIG just tossed out as bonuses to the people who helped create our financial crisis.
Of course, the screechmonkeys refuse to acknowledge how many people might be employed in the arts... museum employees, symphony employees, etc. All they can think of is Robert Mapplethorpe.
And how many people will be employed by the 165 million in bonuses? Oh that's right... ZERO. That's why they're called bonuses.
Rush is an ass.
Taking a penny of these bonuses is stealing from the American tax payer because the money was not ment for this and it is theft by misappropreation and Rush knows this if he has half a brain not tied behind his back.
Contracts, can be changed.
Unions made concessions when the Big 3 took federal money. Why couldn't AIG?
I'm sure they could have but they didn't want to.
This from the NYT:
Update, 4:45 p.m. Representative Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, issued a statement late this afternoon indicating that several committees will be reviewing whether to use special tax legislation, prohibit future compensation from bailout companies or whether to authorize the Attorney General to pursue repayment.
But lawmakers’ efforts to recoup the money may be far more difficult. While caps on executive compensation were put into the stimulus law, under a proposal by by Senator Chris Dodd, the Banking committee chairman, that language excludes any package negotiated before Feb. 11 of this year. (The date reflects the period of time when the final stimulus was being negotiated.) A tougher provision, sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, was dropped during conference negotiations.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/bonuses-bailouts-and-blame/
Again, the contracts could have been changed. They didn't want to, because there were millions of dollars waiting for them in their "bonuses".
I don't disagree that Congress, led by democrats in this case, punted this one badly. No doubt about it. I read the proposal by Snowe and Wyden, and it seemed pretty darn good. I don't know why, and would like to know why, it got eliminated during the bill conference.
Gops never have any trouble abrogating UAW contracts.
The USA is not contractually obligated to save the AIG Derivatives Division from its own incompetence or the brain-dead bush administration from their complicity, clueless criminal negligence and complete and utter lack of regulatory oversight or failure to exercise due diligence in the course of their many gross derelictions of duty.
Fraud and nonperformance, just for openers, are grounds for abrogating a contract. Take your pick. Let the likes of brucie try to argue the absence of either or both of those in this case, sit back and enjoy the show.
If you take the time to read this blog post, you will see who the villains are in this bonus payout mess and you aren't going to like it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html
Media Matters debunked your Chris Dodd fairy tale yesterday Bruce...
You're a day behind.
I posted an update to that story.
As much as it pains me, I have to sort of agree with you. I understand the outrage and I share it... these people getting the bonuses are apparently the same boy wonders who helped create this mess. It's hard to see how these bonuses are based on "merit". These greedy bastards should be punished, not rewarded.
That being said, it's just a drop in the cesspool, and Congress would serve us better by concentrating on solving the larger problems. I think they've all latched onto this as a symbolic way to make us believe they're watching out for our interests.
It's an easy public relations stunt. The fact that is that it would be much easier and a better solution to withhold the bonus amount in any future bailout funds, but that wouldn't create nearly as much "Taxpayer Avenger" press for anyone. So they're happy to make big noise, rumble about a special tax (dumbest thing to come out of Washington since the helicopter hauled Bush back to Texas), and prove once again that the public interest is a back-burner issue.
Now, if you all will excuse me, I'm going to take Rush's advice and look into schools that have a good Bachelors of Fraud program so that I can get started on my own $249,999/yr career (plus bonuses, of course).
I did like how Rush was saying, if you want to make $250k/year, it is completely doable. What a joke this guy is. What is it, the top 2% of all Americans make over that amount? Must be easy to do then right?
No, contracts can be changed just like that. If the parties don't like it take it to court, but NO contract is sacred. That's a repug point that's used for unions, not for their rich buddies.
Just like Jonathan Turley said last night on KO:
Make AIG go to court to show how the contracts should be honored with tax-payer funds.
If AIG believes they deserve or are entitled the bonus money, make them prove it.
"All spending is stimulus according to the stimulus package geniuses"
Where do you get this stuff? If that were true there would be no need for the public accountability measures the Obama administration has put in place.
That first sentence was not supposed to be a serious comment but the formatting of my post didn't work right.
Fair enough. You were just joking. It's a lame excuse, but have at it. It's what we have come to expect from rigties. However, your defense of their contracts, as a matter of status quo belief, is ridiculous given the fact that contracts have been renegotiated in the past.
It's funny your kind never seem bemoan the destruction of our social contract that rewards a hard working middle class with a strong social safety net. And save you tripe about how we still have some programs in place. It's pathetic to think what we have now, after three decades of commonwealth crushing conservative governance, is comparable to the ideals set forth by our founding fathers that the proper role of government is to promote the general welfare as we work toward a more perfect union.
Ya mean, besides the fact that you're - once again - ham-handedly tryin' to change the subject in the hope that nobody will notice that ya don't know what the hell you're talkin' about or what day it is, brucie?
I noticed. I always do. I always will. Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it.
You gops had no problem with abrogating UAW contracts left and right. These conditions were part of the original AIG bailout of 9/08 negotiated by Paulesen on behalf of bush. Geithner was not part of the Bush Administration. Neither was Obama.
Ya got bupkis. Ya always do. Make a note of it, brucie.
This is from Glen Greenwalds blog as linked to above:
It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep forgetting who's in charge these days...that means something.
it certainly does. Geithner is in trouble, he won't last in my opinion. And this from a letter he sent to Pelosi yesterday "like AIG, whose failure would pose substantial risks to our financial system, but to do it in a way that will protect the interests of taxpayers and innocent counterparties". Who exactly are the innocent counterparties? He is far too close to the Wall Streeters to be effective, apparently he is looking out for them a little too much.
LIMBAUGH: -- many of these firms, Nathan, their salaries are pretty small. They work on bonuses, via contract based on merit.
The point is that these guys agreed (by contract) to work for smaller guaranteed salaries (although I wonder how "small" is defined) because they can make more on performance bonuses in a good year...a lot more. If your company tanks to such an extent that the government has to bail it out then obviously you didn't have a good year. The public backlash over this blatant greed is understandable...pigs get fat, hogs get slaughterd.
I wonder how Limbaugh's working class audience is taking to his defense of greed. You will note that this caller, Nathan, hung up on him...
I also wonder, just how "small" their salaries are. Look, if you're getting a million dollar bonus, chances are pretty good that their salaries are not small, in comparison to regular folks. As in, I'm willing to bet that these folks all made a lot more than say, $300k/year.
I'd like to hear his definition of small. I wonder what the average salary of these "little guys" is when factoring in past bonuses, AIG's total of bonuses paid throughout the years and salaries and health care costs for employees and retirees.
Let's have the fatman do a UAW like expose on them.
Well, you have to remember... Blimpy makes about $30 million a year. He probably spends more on tips than I make in a year.
Nah, he probably doesn't tip, because those folks get paid already, why do they need tips after all?
The same guy that moaned about UAW workers making over $70.00 an hour.
Wonder what the hourly rate of these AIG employees calculate to considering they DID NOT bring in any money but lost money.
Except, of course as you know, UAW guys don't make $70/hour.
Was referring to Rush stating that "fact"..could have been clearer, sorry.
I'm sure that since Limbaugh has grown a conscience about contracts, he'll retract everything he's said in the past about auto companies contractual obligation concerning pensions and salaries.
Nah, don't count on it of course. I have made this point to many conservatives I've talked to about this in the last couple of days, and apparently, unions are greedy, and are paid too much, according to them, and these guys had this bonus written into their contract so they should get the money.
Ah yes, the classic double standard. People who make things with their hands take the hit, but the guys shuffling money via computer get to take home their million dollar, or more, bonuses, and somehow that's OK with them?
I don't get it. I don't get it at all.
To his credit, Pat Buchanan has been making the same point... that the UAW was forced to break contracts to get bailout money for the Automakers.
Who ever thought that Mr."Culture War" would become such a populist?
"LIMBAUGH: Well, no, you want to earn 249,999 so you don't get the tax increase."
Is there a specific term for this?
Lunacy? Inanity? Ignorance? Misrepresentation?
No, I don't think there's a "specific" term for it. It covers too much ground.
How about calculated disingenuity? Either that, or sleazy propaganda.
there are two questions here. one, is there a legal obligation to pay the bonuses? there may be, maybe not. question two, do they deserve the bonuses? no, they do not. and that is what limbaugh is trying to defend. he says: "they work on bonuses, via contract based on merit"
and what "merit" would that be. last time i checked merit is when you met expectations. it does not include driving your company into bankruptcy, and then sticking your hand out for taxpayer money. rush has no problem with corporate welfare.
he's also misleading when he says don't make 250,000, make only 249,999 instead, because you're going to get taxed. except when you hit 250,000, the higher tax rate only applies to anything over that amount. it does not retroactively apply to income under 250,000. rush has invited obama to come on his show. obama should take the offer. he could tie limbaugh in knots.
I've wrestled with the "merit" aspect of this, and from the limited bit I know about the situation, it has its viability.
Apparently, the bonus money is going to that section of AIG responsible exclusively for sales. So even though the product they were selling was fraudulent, these "salesmen" had no responsibility for either the products composition or the companies greater financial operations. In other words, it would be like expecting the salesman who sold you your new Chrysler minivan - rather than Chrysler itself - to be responsible to honor the warranty when the tail light fell off.
Now I don't know that the preceding fully considers all the pertinent facts, but that's where I see it so far from my admittedly informationally-limited perspective.
i'm not sure that is exactly correct, because i think a lot of them were buying all the hedged mortgage bundles and credit swaps that got the company in trouble. because no insurance company exists solely on payments from clients buying insurance, they invest the money in other things and when things go south like in this case, then they're in trouble. that's the problem with so much of this crisis. it was people selling debt from one to another, and finally it just all collapsed. mortgage brokers made money from sellling interest only mortgages to people who could not afford them and should not have been given them.
my problem with rush is he seems to be saying "executive" bonuses are owed to the people who drove this company into the ground. [i get my car insurance from them, and i got a notice about a month ago that they were changing the name from aig to something else. wonder why?] but your perspective deserves it's consideration. it also would have been nice to see the public getting this upset when paul krugman was predicting this exact real estate collapse 4 years ago, and pointing out the out of control lending practices and the debt swapping that was going to lead to this. but we don't act, we react.
Is that a reverse Ponzi scheme?
basically yes, but all legal, in the sense there were not laws and regulations forbidding it. but we were hardly the only country that bought in. iceland has been devastated and a lot of other european countries were hurt because they were dealing with their banks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iceland-recession-banking-collapse
First of all, the oxy-moron is a balloon animal. Tyin' the lunatic-fringe likes of him and his division of dittoheads in knots ain't exactly taxing.
Secondly, the operative question here is why is factually-challenged, fraudulent, talk show trash the best the gops can come up with for a champion to argue their case?
That should tell you all you need to know about the current state of the gops and the chronic intellectual, ethical, moral and spiritual bankruptcy condition of the conservative bowel movement.
A certain economic theorist, popular to some today, say any government spending as 'stimulative'. So like the $1billion increase in spending that congress gave itself this year, the bonuses will create a domino effect of wonderful economic activity. And, really this is a pitance compared to all the money thrown down into this abyss since September.
Shame on the government for throwing all this money away, AIG for getting into bed with the devil and for Americans for not considering the huge amount of debt we continue to allow our government to accrue.
AIG is the devil. Give aways to the rich aren't stimulative because they largely squirrel away their money in off-shore accounts and investments. Putting money in the hands of the folks that will actually spend it domestically, like the poor and middle-class is the right strategy.
Now would be an opportune time to ask Republican politicians if they agree with Rush Limbaugh. Do they still consider Limbaugh a strong voice for conservatism? Does conservatism countenance greed?
Conservatism is not greed! Conservatives belief that individual freedom and liberty are the best guides for all behavior, economic and otherwise. Greed is about power and control, again over more than money. Is a socialist that steals different than a capitalist that steals? Is Madoff a political prisoner now?
Consider how in Pennsylvania a major democrat leader has just been convicted of 130+ counts of corruption related to misuse of public funds, even setting up a 'charity'. Is that less than rep. cunningham or senator stevens taking as they did? Greed is an equal opportunity vice.
As far as republican politicians, many of them are not conservative but court them when expedient. When the tenets of conservatism are applied, the best opportunity for success, individual and otherwise, is put in place.
With Rush, I see him as a spokesperson for conservatism not republicans.
If Rush is a spokesperson for conservatism and not Republicans, could you please post quotes of Rush criticizing the previous administration for growing the government? Could you post quotes of his criticizing the amount of deficit spending? Could you post quotes of him criticizing the government's wiretapping program which certainly violates individual liberties. Thanks!
Greed is about power and control...
You've just described Bush the Lesser and his merry band of theives.
>>With Rush, I see him as a spokesperson for conservatism not republicans.
A hypocrite with frequent legal troubles? Seems like a pretty good spokesperson for republicans.
So in other words, conservatism is an unattainable ideal. To hear conservatives tell it, conservatism never fails; it is conservatism that is failed by mere mortals.
Meanwhile, history contradicts your pipe dream.
It's been liberalism that has brought us the the best the U.S has to offer. From public education and clean drinking water, to worker's rights and public health, to the GI Bill and rural electrification, liberals fought against the regressive conservative chants of socialism. Despite all the full throated protests of the radical conservatives that liberals were killing the free market, business still thrived in America. Despite the dead ender conservative movement's efforts to halt the New Deal, the liberal principles of effective government, mutual responsibility and broad prosperity oversaw the greatest expansion of the middle class the world has ever seen.
So don't come here and pretend conservatism is some magical cure all. We know better. We know the actual agenda of conservatism is to strangle good government and redistribute as much income as possible to the wealthy. And conservatism has been applied to that end with great success for the better part of thirty years.
Sure. He's all about contracts and employees... unless they're union contracts and union employees.
How many employees had to be displaced at Clear Channel to make room for his fat multi-million dollar contract? One thousand, two thousand?
Yeah, he really cares about employees as humans.
I don't think clear channel would employ anyone at all, if not for him and talk radio. No one was displaced because that opportunity for work would not exist in the first place. How many people has oberman replaced on msnbc/ge because of his big money? And really paid so much for so little response comparitively. Come to think of it, didn't GE get bailout money? Hey, oberman has taken tarp funds to do his show!
Rush's multi-million stimulus package is probably making work for many who would not have a chance to do whether landscaping, radio management, show production, acorn complaint gatherers, media matters (for very little) personnel monitoring his shows, and so on.
Not bad.
You may have a point about Olberaman, or any overpaid talking head for that matter. Perhaps Olberman's salary has knocked some folks out of work. I do not doubt it any more than I doubt executive salaries at medical insurance companies bump people off comprehensive, affordable coverage.
But to imply that Clear Channel would not be what it is without right wing talkers is silly. Not only does CC do sports radio, which the numbers for sports radio make Limbaugh look like a drop in the bucket, they buy out their local competitors to eliminate potential ass whoopin's in small markets.
But your argument is funny. That layoffs are not really layoffs because without Limbaugh nothing exists at CC in the first place. You totally ignore the culture of excess and self interest that defines Limbaugh conservatism with his me first attitude. Your argument parallels that conservative way of thinking that states an expired sweet heart tax deal for the wealthy and corporations is a tax hike on the middle class.
The point is Limbaugh doesn't give a crap about employees at any business, or your tax dollars subsidizing the rich, he just wants to keep the corporate Marxist gravy train rolling for his executive golfing buddies.
So New York needs Central Park West... but Detroit doesn't need it's middle-class, UAW backbone?
Regarding Rush Limabaugh saying, "how do you get to the point where you're going to bail out the company, but you don't want the employees to get paid?"
President Obama makes $400,000/year.
Employees at bailed-out companies should be taxed 100% on their compensation above $400,000.
It isn't that they shouldn't be paid, it's that they shouldn't be paid millions/year with our money.
No, they shouldn't be paid.
Most other workers aren't even ABLE to fail and lie for months on end, because they'd be fired long before that.
Here we have a millionaire defending other millionaires in front of an audience of mostly lower middle class voters who make less then $45, 000 a year. And their made to believe that their hard earned tax money should prop up their lavish lifestyles all because they have a better education and status then they do? If this isn't advocating elitism, I don't know what is!
Hint of advice to Rush Limbaugh fans....you put down that kool-aid being offered to you by the wealthy elite and turn on the Tom Hartmann show or the Ed Shultz show. These guys are always defending the hard working men and women of America. They will always have your back. They will always stick up for the little man and fight for your rights to fair wages and protection from abuse. Sure, you may not always agree with everything you say...but at the end of the show, at least you know their on your side!
While middle-class righties may be receptive to what Tom and Ed have to say about the working folks, in the end, it's all about guns, gays and God.
Guns, gays and god and the repugs are ignorant on all those subjects too.
...a millionaire defending other millionaires in front of an audience of mostly lower middle class voters...
That's the fascinating part to me, AOW.I listen to wingnut radio whenever I have the chance, and I hear the callers, many of them sound like lower-middle-class blue collar people, and they're enraged at the plight of people who get paid more every day than the callers do in a year.
I think there's a very real self-loathing, or low self-esteem, or inferiority issue that one needs in order to be a far right nut like the followers of El Rushbo.The weird belief that if they worship and support these people who make huge sums of money shuffling the green stuff around, that those at the very top are someday, eventually going to throw some substantial crumbs down to the peasants, or pull a few of them up to the elite circle.
Rush even uses the word "peasants" in his little rant here. He's like an abusive daddy keeping his dittokids in line by telling them how worthless they are.
Well said, alienofwar. Welcome to MMFA.
SHAGGLES, You may have something there. We know that EL FLUSH BO hates the DEMOCRATS so much he probably do what you suggested.
I can tell you that I receive a bonus each quarter. It is based on certain clear criteria. If you can receive your bonus even when you are doing terribly at your job then it is not a bonus. Let's call it what it is - salary.
Rush also gave Nathan a math lesson about the AIG bonuses.
He said to Nathan: "I guarantee you, whatever amount of bonus money these people at AIG are getting -- your share, probably less than a penny."
Lets see. $165 million in bonus money and about 140 million taxpayers. Not that hard.