Rush today

[Legacy Fan]

Yes, Cal, what Jackson is talking about is what Tupa and I have have been talking about for months - that you don't want to use the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 out of the EPA because it's overly cumbersome and expensive for businesses, but that you want to do it with a cap and trade system.

 

That's what Jackson is saying here.

 

Rush wants to use this memo to say that "everything about CO2 is a myth", when that's not what it says, or what the memo is about. It's simply questioning whether or not CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

 

It's not saying global warming doesn't exist, or that CO2 isn't a problem. And whoever wrote this memo ended up losing this fight, because the EPA agreed - and has long agreed, but were denied by the Bush administration - that CO2 is a pollutant and eligible to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But that's not to say that this is the best or most efficient way to regulate CO2, because it isn't. Which is why the Obama administration wants a cap and trade program instead.

 

I know this is all way over your head, but this is another example of why you shouldn't get your news from Rush Limbaugh.

 

But hey, that's why I'm here - to correct all of his bullshit. It only takes a quick skim and a second of thought.

I actually caught this on my way to lunch. Yes, I went searching for Rush's show but only because I was hoping for some context for yesterday or whenever it was.

Rush did the "this memo says CO2 isn't a pollutant" for about 2-3 minutes and I seriously considered ending my life. Appetite was gone.

When the "I knew it!!" calls began pouring in, I turned it off for fear of acting on the former thought.

[Westside Steve]

1% of ten is less than 1% of twenty. Thanks. I knew that.

 

Yes, of course, Steve! Bush was required to cut everyone's taxes by the exact same percentage. He couldn't cut some people's taxes and not others, or cut some by greater percentages than others. He was bound to keep them all equal. Now I get it!

 

No Heck.

You don't get it.

But we get that.

 

Thank God we have you around. That explains why I should have accepted it as good policy all along - it's not the dollar amount that matters, it's the percentage!

 

Right e O.

Make it 90% and we'll all be rich.

Hey why not do it today?

 

Jesus.

 

Your word of the day? Ironic ain't it?

 

Also, can you now find me an example of these "blame the man" arguments you keep insisting I'm relying on? I bet you can't find any of these either. Which will make you 0-for-3 in just about the last week.

 

Lets see....

This depression and starvation of poor people and the "worst economy since DE GREAT DEPRESSION was caused by Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Crime bad schools poverty all due to the greed of the man.

Taxes are just too low DAMN you Bush!!!!

The rich man the white man the republican man.

 

And you drink the Kool Aid daily.

As to #3, OK I admit I've never actually seen you pee yourself at an Obama rally though you say it's a natural response.

 

And AGAIN no response but stupid attacks.

You really are a tool.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

That was you listing my arguments? I've made those arguments? When? Where?

 

That's really pathetic.

[Westside Steve]

That was you listing my arguments? I've made those arguments? When? Where?

 

That's really pathetic.

 

Great.

We accept the revelation you've embraced.

So reversing the tax cuts would be a bad idea.

Higher taxes will not help any of the problems.

Welcome aboard.

 

BTW is that it?

Great stuff.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, for God's sake.

 

Again, can you find an example of me making the arguments you accuse me of making, or are you going to make them up on your own and claim they're mine, like two posts ago, or play dumb, like your last post?

 

Or maybe you could, you know, not make up arguments I don't make and then attribute them to me.

 

That's what's pathetic.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's some more info on that memo Rush and Glenn Beck are touting as a smoking gun:

 

"The author of the skeptical comments forwarded by the OMB was Joseph M. Johnson, a Bush administration holdover in the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. In 2005, Johnson joined the SBA from the Mercatus Center, an anti-regulatory think tank founded by Koch Industries."

 

And what business is Koch in?

 

"...petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment."

 

 

[Mr. T]

For the record, 46.

 

But the question is how does Obama deliver tax cuts to people who don't pay income taxes?

 

During his Presidential campaign Obama promised a tax cut to 95% of working families.

 

Almost half of the 95% of Americans that Obama was talking about don’t even pay income taxes.

 

Obama’s goons soon cried out and said that they pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.

 

But themoney that goes to Social Security isn’t a tax, it’s a contribution.

 

Your paycheck notes. FICA That’s “Federal Insurance Contribution Act.” Its a insurance premium, not a tax.

 

Obama wants to give the lower income bracket a free ride on their Social Security. Which turns Social Security and Medicare into a welfare program.

 

Obama’s tax cut, is a welfare check. Another government handout.

 

Simply put, you can’t give tax cuts to people who don’t pay income taxes.

 

An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.

 

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Well, now Rush is talking about Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to tax health benefits.

 

But now, Obama plans to tax health benefits.

 

Any libs ready to spit out their we'vebeenscrewedover koolaid?

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html

 

Oh, but Heck is pathetic - he'll keep right on ignoring the hypocrisy and socialistobama's lies.

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...r98yLgD985DHF80

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html

 

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/16/...a1726590461.txt

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, you just posted one of Rush's big scoops, and it took me all of three minutes to shoot it down as nonsense.

 

Do you still think this memo, written by an industry plant in the EPA and overruled by the rest of the people at the EPA, is some sort of "smoking gun" that invalidates global warming?

 

This is really great for a new father. I get to argue with Cal, which is like arguing with a small child. And then I get to argue with Steve, which is like arguing with a petulant teen who's just read a book.

 

It's wonderful practice.

[We need Tom Tupa]

The Democrats' plan was to campaign against the Bush tax policy, and to run on a platform of raising the top rates back to where they were under Clinton, while cutting income taxes for 95% of Americans. It was a plan for a slightly more progressive income tax than we had under Bush. It's not a plan for socialism, or for class envy.

 

Mind-numbing.

 

The Obama tax code is just "slightly" more progressive than the Bush tax code, which was slightly more progressive than the Clinton tax code, which was slightly more progressive than the HW tax code, which was more progressive than the Reagan tax code...

 

As long as the changes are small, we shouldnt get upset, right? And while no one is paying attention, we went from the EITC being a novel creation 25 years ago to half the country paying a negative effective tax rate. Cal, don't use the word socialism. Just call this what it is: a shitty, incredibly progressive income tax code that has been moving in the same direction for 2 decades because it's a lot easier to piss off 2% than to piss off the other 98%.

 

I should note, however, that I fully expect the middle class to start paying more taxes. Either that, or Obama will have to start wearing the sign Conservatives have had printed up for him: Most Fiscally Irresponsible President In History. At least he wouldnt be breaking another precious campaign promise. (I'll forego the obvious discussion of the affect that cap and trade, increased corporate tax, and any other new tax has on the middle and lower class.)

 

Also, I have no idea what this thread is about. I didnt read it all. Rush is mostly a jackass, I'll give you that.

[calfoxwc]

And I posted three -more objective- links.

 

Unless you are dolt enough Heck. to declare

 

the NY Times a right wing propaganda machine.

 

Would the childish Heck like more links?

 

You sure? I can post a whole bunch of em.

 

Try dissing every source I can post.

 

This should be good, pouty Hecky.

 

Your perosnal insults don't make you right.

 

It just buoys your unjustified arrogant posturing.

 

You wear the "Emporer's New Clothes"

 

You are to laugh at. Go ahead,

 

ask me for more links on the subject of Obama

 

flippety-flippin on yet another important issue.

 

You don't argue, you just run to another safe tree,

 

then decide the new tree made you right.

 

Doesn't work. And yes, the bark is falling off

 

the ugly socialistobama tree.

 

Harder and harder to deny.

[Mr. T]

Heck, You defend anything from the Obama Nation, try to be a little more rational. Actually weigh in on your thinking. Cal & steve have lived life a little longer than you and have made it through many more trials, they know what they are talking about.

 

[calfoxwc]

Once again Heck leaves himself looking like a fool.

 

Like I said, Heck, I posted 3 links more.

 

and guess what, Heck Licks Obama's Toes ?

 

"Results 1 - 10 of about 31,200,000 for obama tax health benefits. (0.23 seconds) "

 

There's 30,999,997 more links, though not all will be about

Obama very very open to taxing health benefits.

 

That makes your cult hero socialistobama a liar right out of Alinski's rules for radicals.

 

Which, you already concur with as a good thing - referring to his lying out his rear

 

end about the oxymoron "gay marriage".

 

Come on Heck, man up for once. Challenge me to find more links

that affirm what Rush was saying is accurate.

 

Git yer big foot outa yer big mouth.

 

Go ahead, Heckleberryspin. Want me to post a bunch of valid links?

 

btw: http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/03/13...ime-in-history/

[Westside Steve]

Oh, for God's sake.

 

Again, can you find an example of me making the arguments you accuse me of making, or are you going to make them up on your own and claim they're mine, like two posts ago, or play dumb, like your last post?

 

Or maybe you could, you know, not make up arguments I don't make and then attribute them to me.

 

That's what's pathetic.

 

What is pathetic is your spinjob heck.

 

I'll give you an opportunity right now. This should be a snap.

Are the following statements true or false.

 

1 The Bush tax cuts did not harm the US economy or poor communities or "middle class" and probably spurred growth.

 

2 Obama was wrong to attack the Bush economic policies that favored the rich in his view.

 

3 More responsibility among the poor will elevate the standards of their communities far better than transferring more money from the "rich."

 

4 The Bush tax cuts are not responsible for the economic downturn and high unemployment.

 

 

Answer true for the above and I'll admit I was way off base to accuse you of blaming the man.

 

WSS

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd only agree to #4, but I wouldn't word any of my opinions or the questions you've raised remotely like you have. What you've written doesn't make much sense.

 

Honestly, Steve, I don't think you're up to arguing this honestly. You don't make policy points. You're just upset at people.

 

I get it. You want poor people to stop whining at the rich and take some responsibility for their lazy asses. You want the Democrats to stop attacking the rich. You want the rich to get more money in tax cuts because you think that helps everybody.

 

That's not really a policy position. It might work on talk radio, though.

[calfoxwc]

And yes, there you go, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

a classic example of HeckleberrySpin making a wanton

 

personal attack on somebody without actually answering

 

much of anything at all. He can be totally full of garbage'

 

and it doesn't matter to him, he's still superior and perfectly wrong

 

but that means he's right. Or... whatever.

 

Oh, Heckleberryspin is "sorry" alright.

 

It's impossible to have an honest conversation with him.

[Westside Steve]

I'd only agree to #4, but I wouldn't word any of my opinions or the questions you've raised remotely like you have. What you've written doesn't make much sense.

 

Sure it does. Wording it differently to allow more spin room isn't worth anything.

 

Honestly, Steve, I don't think you're up to arguing this honestly.

 

Honestly?

 

You don't make policy points. You're just upset at people.

 

I'm upset by bad economic policy. I think it will be worse for everyone in the long run.

But what we're talking about is the attacks on "the rich" and empty promises to the poor and middle class. Nobody makes "policy points" in a campaign.

 

I get it. You want poor people Mostly guys like you actually to stop whining at the rich and take some responsibility for their lazy asses. You want the Democrats to stop attacking the rich. You want the rich to get more money in tax cuts because you think that helps everybody.

 

And you don't?

 

That's not really a policy position. It might work on talk radio, though.

 

Braying at the rich ove how they abuse society and taking away more of what they earn because "that helps everybody" is a policy position?

 

 

Obama ran a campaign built on attacking the "failed bush erconomic policy" and "tax cuts for the rich."

I call it a class envy stategy that worked.

 

I say that's wrong though.

And furthermore if it was right why not end the tax reduction today?

Who can stop him?

 

 

BTW you're up early. Al Jezeera briefing?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm up every three hours.

 

How about this? In the spirit of comity and goodwill, why don't you tell me a policy that you'd like to see enacted that would bring about "More responsibility among the poor" and would "elevate the standards of their communities"?

 

What can the government do to encourage that? What would you like to see?

 

For now, let's leave aside the notion that the irresponsibility among those on Wall Street (i.e. wealthy people) and in Washington is mostly responsible for our current economic trouble, not irresponsibility among the poor, and that the focus on poor people is largely misplaced and born out of personal animus.

[Westside Steve]

I'm up every three hours.

 

Duh. I forgot.....

How about this? In the spirit of comity and goodwill, why don't you tell me a policy that you'd like to see enacted that would bring about "More responsibility among the poor" and would "elevate the standards of their communities"?

 

I'll get back to the rest.

WSS

 

What can the government do to encourage that? What would you like to see?

 

For now, let's leave aside the notion that the irresponsibility among those on Wall Street (i.e. wealthy people) and in Washington is mostly responsible for our current economic trouble, not irresponsibility among the poor, and that the focus on poor people is largely misplaced and born out of personal animus.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Personally (and empirically, I would argue) the best thing government can do for the poor and the middle class is to overhaul the health care system and provide all - or close to all - Americans access to decent and affordable health care.

 

I think it's also important for the long-run fiscal health of the country, and for the competitiveness of American business.

 

Which isn't to say this is an easy task, or an inexpensive one.

 

So I'd start there long before I'd worry about the government encouraging responsibility, whatever that means.

 

But I look forward to hearing your answer.

[Guest mz.]

So what I would propose would be either free college education for these people no questions asked,

 

SOCIALIST!!!!!!

[heckofajobbrownie]

I wouldn't go so far as paying for their college education, but we do have programs that help people pay for it.

[Guest mz.]

Give them the tools to succeed, and then watch that lil' fella grow!

 

I understand the feelings re: govt assistance guys like you and T have espoused, but this is what gov't assistance aims to do. Not everyone uses it for crack or Ripple.

 

[Mr. T]

Some states already offer free tuition if you are a citizens of that state to attend a state college/university. Then there also are work study programs available.

 

Tuition-Free Colleges

 

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/conte...1113_819956.htm

[Westside Steve]

I wouldn't go so far as paying for their college education, but we do have programs that help people pay for it.

 

As I see it just giving away the time at college takes away the worth of earning something.

I'm positive the schools would love the income and moreover think they'd design programs with easily met goals to keep the cash flow going.

I'm seeing that in action right now.

 

I have no beef with student loans at low rates.

With those there should be some strict counseling to make sure the education program is going to be valueable.

They'd still be loans though and would need to be paid back even at a relaxed rate.

And any grants should be merit based even if the requitrements aren't super strict..

 

WSS

[Guest mz.]

however there is widespread abuse with the handouts the gov't gives.

 

I know you feel this way, but you have nothing but anecdotal evidence (at most) and gut feelings to support these claims.

 

As I see it just giving away the time at college takes away the worth of earning something.

I'm positive the schools would love the income and moreover think they'd design programs with easily met goals to keep the cash flow going.

I'm seeing that in action right now.

 

I have no beef with student loans at low rates.

With those there should be some strict counseling to make sure the education program is going to be valueable.

They'd still be loans though and would need to be paid back even at a relaxed rate.

And any grants should be merit based even if the requitrements aren't super strict..

 

WSS

 

And this is the biggest pantload I have read on this board in quite some time.

[Westside Steve]

I know you feel this way, but you have nothing but anecdotal evidence (at most) and gut feelings to support these claims.

 

 

 

And this is the biggest pantload I have read on this board in quite some time.

 

What makes you say that?

I thought it was a fairly measured statement.

 

You lefties just blast me before you read it or what?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Of all the things that Steve has written, that one didn't bother me that much. I thought the counseling notion went a little far, and his suspicions of the motivations of educators was a little much, but it mostly seemed reasonable enough to me.

 

Not everyone should be in college, nor should it be free for most people.

 

That said, you want to make it available and doable for everyone who wants and deserves to go.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Still waiting for your plan for more responsible poor people, though, Steve.