in the words of Rahm Emanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste".
let's try something different for a change

>> ^NetRunner:
^ My goodness, you think they might alienate Rush's audience by calling him a sideshow? Won't constantly kissing his ring alienate everyone else?
I guess they'll have to decide whose interests they serve, and act appropriately.


Yea, I really don't understand it. They know that being closely associated with Rush will alienate a lot of possible voters, but at the same time they seem to be trying their best not to say anything bad about him.

Maybe they're afraid that if Rush blasts them on his show then they won't get votes from either side, or maybe Rush was a big reason some of them got elected to begin with and they feel they owe him for it.

It's a really bizarre situation, but it is funny to see Steele run back to say he's sorry every time he says something unflattering about Rush.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ The problem with labeling Rush a sideshow is that they alienate Rush's audience. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, but they seem to be scared of losing the "conservative core" vote.


There literally are not that many dittoheads out there. He has 3million listeners, and the one's that I personally know range from nutball lunatics, to people who casually listen to him and think he's mostly full of shit.

Just because 1,000 lunatics went nuts at CPAC doesn't mean there's that many more of them in this country who follow their brand of idiocy. And, as all the polls show lately, the average American isn't buying their bullshit anymore.

It would do a great service to the GOP to unleash the hounds on Rush and gain a bit of credibility for their party.

^ It seems to be making a lot of Republicans very uneasy, which I find funny. Many of them don't want to be equated with Rush, but they also don't want to publicly denounce him.

Emanuel and others are more than happy to press the issue, and Rush doesn't seem to mind either. It puts the squeeze on social conservatives which tickles me a bit. Rush isn't going to back down, so individuals in the party will have to choose to either embrace Rush's views or denounce them.

I don't want the entire Republican party to be demonized, but I have to admit that I wouldn't be upset to see social conservatives take a public political beating over this.

Well no of course it wasn't a compliment... and what your saying is fine... except that if you listen to Limbaugh speak, he seems to be trying very hard to equate his view on things as being that of all 'true' conservatives and republicans...

I have no issue with Emanuel helping him with that cause...

>> ^Januari:
I agree that refering to Limbaugh as an "intellectual force" is being incredibly generous...


It wasn't meant as a compliment to Rush, it was meant as an insult to Republicans.

Basically they're trying to equate Republicans with a very well-known and unpopular figure. That way when people hear Rush saying something they don't like then they automatically transcribe that statement to the entire Republican party.

It is a good tactic because many people already view political parties like sports teams... "our" team vs "their" team. They think of the opposing party in very broad generalized terms, and if they can put a face on that generalization then it will only strengthen their belief.

Personally I think each politician should be judged by their individual stances on issues instead of the party they belong to. That's my problem though... I like to think.

>> ^quantumushroom:
This Rush is more important:
The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.


Why do I get the impression that that quote and that opinion about that quote comes from a conservative blog? I don't know what he meant, and I could not be bothered dredging up a link for something so irrelevant but if I had to guess it would be something along the lines of creating an opportunity to fund the development of massively underfunded and otherwise crumbling infrastructure by employing those who would have been otherwise left jobless by the layoffs in the construction industry.

How could you possibly think that worsening the situation now will cause people to blame conservatism. They will blame interventionary policy for failing. How could you possibly say that the US president has no recovery plan, have you been living under a rock? You may disagree with it but that does not disprove the former.

How has complete not-intervention combined with consistent tax cuts on the wealthy worked out for you in the past 8 years?

Let me turn your last point back around, how does improving health care not create a more dynamic and competitive work force in the long term and strengthen economic growth?

This Rush is more important:

The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rahms_rent_is_just_the_tip_of_ethics_ice_155536.htm

Limbaugh couldn't even use a PDF file, an intellectual force?

I am very unhappy with Mr Emanuel.
Ethics in Government Act (1978)

In section 102, Source of incomes does cover rents.

He failed to report his Rent Free Living. What I want is, as an American, and an US citizen; some real transparency and ethical fortitude.

The more I think about it, the more I surreal it seems to me. The system is rife with nepotism, and malfeasance. Whether it be cognitive, or unconscious.

Its all very interesting, all though I couldn't care less. I could have been playing games, instead of creating an argument. Also, up vote for a good video, even if I don't agree.

*EDIT: It took some digging, but I also found this and interesting read: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/02/more-on-tax-consequences.html

>> ^rougy:
At this point in time, mandatory service equals compulsory brainwashing.


Perhaps I would agree if we were talking about mandatory military service, which is clearly not what has been proposed. And even on that point, the experience with the draft during Vietnam actually shows the opposite, rather than becoming brainwashed, both those inside and outside of the military establishment resisted the principles being put forth.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
aaronfr you forgot several other countries. But I think we know who they are.


Sweden had a mandatory military service for people aged 18-25 until just recently. Why'd they stop? Because they haven't been at war in almost 200 years and the military is nothing but a money hole.

That some totalitarian states have mandatory military service doesn't automatically make it a bad system, as I'm sure you know. There are up- and downsides to it of course, but it's nothing like the annoying, early 20-something brat in this video tries to make it out to be with his nasal whining.

>> ^lantern53:
Aren't RE and BO from the same chicago political machine?
they think alike.


that is so psychologically ignorant, it's ridiculous.

hmm, well... the video makes three points: 1. 13th amendment vs compulsory civil service, 2. "terrorist list" vs 2nd amendment, and 3. "crisis times" vs selfish opportunism

first off, this video screed, imho, deliberately attempts to strip much of the context from these issues

1. this c-span interview is from august 2006, and perhaps wrongly attributes "involuntary servitude" to the issue of civil service (e.g. butler v. perry)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

2. this emanuel speech took place at a brady center event in may 2007, and is more of a democratic "stump" speech in favor of *reinvigorating* the purpose of the brady bill... whereas i think most of us would support banning *suspected terrorists* from the right to bear arms, the emanuel speech says *nothing* about the *real* problem with these "terrorist lists* ... i.e. the inefficient screening process leading to, imho, bloated lists

3. this wsj interview is at least current, but almost completely stripped of its context, i.e. extraordinary challenges test the mettle of those challenged, *not* crisis necessarily gives gov't the *excuse* to strip civil liberties

I don't really like giving my views on these topics -- everyone is so biased by ideologies that it's almost impossible to sift through attacks and just bullshit.

Over the past six months I've spent many late nights trying to figure out what is happening to the US, and how it's going to affect my life in Australia. Our government seems to be following suit (create money, bail out failing industries, announce huge budget deficits).

Isn't it time to ask the question - is it worth 'stimulating' an economy that seems to be fundamentally flawed?

We, in western countries, have lived in probably the most leveraged state in history. Not just banks, the entire society. We used this leverage to purchase and consume goods made abroad, and to fund a service sector economy that is crashing now.

Now all this money that can't be paid back has to be written off. It can't be paid back. The leverage that existed because of this capital is gone.

Paulson and Bernanke pulled off a deft maneuver with the original TARP package.

There would have been a complete collapse of the American economy if they didn't act. The elephant in the room is simple though - what actually is the American economy?

It's a consumer and service sector based economy. Very little real goods are actually produced. The US has run a trade deficit since 1975.

There isn't a viable economy to stimulate. Even the automotive industry, considered the pinnacle of American manufacturing, burns cash at rates that render it unable to compete in a global market.

I've only read 200 pages of the act so far, and it seems like (excluding the TARP packages) it is the biggest transference of wealth from taxpayers to whomever the government decides in all time. It's a quick fix that will keep the government in power thanks in part to keeping a lot of people employed... by the government. A new social contract will emerge as written by Rahm Emanuel in his book "The Plan".

The whole saga has shown the world -- or at least myself, just what I suspected about America all along. The 'values' that they proudly proselytize to the world don't mean a god damn thing when a real test shows up.

Sadly, the next two years will probably sound the death knell for capitalism in my life time.

Cliffs:

a) America's economy is fake and nothing can 'save' it, it needs to be reinvented
b) America is bankrupt and will eventually default on it's debt to the rest of the world
c) Primarily, the manipulation of the Fractional Reserve Banking system caused the problem

Thoughts?

PS. I apologize if this is a little all over the place, I'm writing it between meetings at work.

>> ^Smugglarn:
^
In what condition do you believe your country to be in now?


Pretty solid for like 69 more days or w/e it is...then it'll get ugly. Recessions happen, you kids just get freaked because you haven't seen a real one, because you don't study history, and because you live in the internet age where you want everything here and now.