BREAKING: Obama Embraces Limbaugh Policy Ideas

Obama the Great is giving his State of the Union Address and in it he just said that his plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs will involve giving tax credits to small businesses and ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses. He also talked of corporate tax breaks.

This is nearly the exact thing Rush Limbaugh TOLD Obama needed to be done. On January 26th of last year, six days after the coronation, Limbaugh proposed the Obama-Limbaugh Bipartisan Stimulus Plan of 2009. In it he said that his part of the plan would include tax cuts:

These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax rate cuts.

Limbaugh said that the way to stimulate the economy and create jobs was to cut the capital gains tax and the corporate tax. This was poo pooed by the left who claim that tax cuts do not achieve the stated goals and that only spending will work. Obama opted for the spending and unemployment is now at 10% and his Stimulus has been a bust.

Tonight Obama embraced the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh. He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments and Limbaugh called for a capital gains tax cut on individual capital gains as well. But this is a start.

By making this proposal, Barack Obama has admitted that the liberal ideology is wrong. He has admitted that liberal tax and spend policies do not work. He has admitted that liberalism and its ways is a complete hoax.

And he has admitted that Limbaugh was right.

He has embraced the conservative principle of tax cuts to stimulate. He has taken the advice of the man he tried to demonize only a few short months ago.

Rush Limbaugh was right and Obama was wrong. Obama as much as admitted that.

Make no mistake. Obama is trying to appeal to an electorate (particularly Independents) that is fed up with the way he is running things. He is trying to stop the bleeding from the wounds of the Brown victory in Massachusetts. He is taking this approach to try and win in November.

But he has thrown his party and its ideology under the bus. When things get better the country will see that liberalism is a failed exercise in futility.

And they will see that Limbaugh was right all along.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

40 Responses to “BREAKING: Obama Embraces Limbaugh Policy Ideas”

  1. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “…in it [Obama] just said that his plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs will involve giving tax credits to small businesses and ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses.”>>

    DAR
    Wrong. What Obama actually said:

    “While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”
    transcript.

    You start with a lie, spin your story, while acknowledging your error in passing. This makes no sense. Why not just be honest from the start? You learn your lessons and tactics from Limbaugh well, but such a habit is not useful and the pretense is easy to expose.

    Anyway, another great speech by a most reasonable and excellent president.

    D.
    —————
    “It was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popular politicians in America. It was not a rejection of universal health care, which Massachusetts mandated (with Scott Brown’s State Senate vote) in 2006 [and has a 68% approval rate]. It was not a harbinger of a resurgent G.O.P., whose numbers remain in the toilet. Brown had the good sense not to identify himself as a Republican in either his campaign advertising or his victory speech.” –Frank Rich

    Link.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I specifically said capital gains investments.

    Rich can spin it but he is wrong. Believe it if you will.

    Will be curious of the Fact Checking on this one.

    Yes, Darrel, Obama admitted that liberal ideology is wrong and that Limbaugh was right.

    Excellent speech? He delivers most speeches well. I imagine he could read the phone book and make it sound good but that would not improve the substance.

    His party is dead in November. Health care is dead. Cap and Tax dead…

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I specifically said capital gains investments.”>>

      DAR
      You specifically said exactly what I quoted you as saying, in your very first sentence.

      That’s what nice about roasting dittoheads in print. In a verbal exchange I would have to play the tape, in print, I just quote your words, verbatim.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        The problem with morons is they do not read. Did you miss this:

        Tonight Obama embraced the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh. He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments and Limbaugh called for a capital gains tax cut on individual capital gains as well. But this is a start.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: The problem with morons is they do not read.”>>

        DAR
        I agree. Why don’t you learn to read? Trying starting with the FIRST SENTENCE in your article.

        Bigd: Did you miss this:>>

        DAR
        Obviously not because I RESPONDED TO IT in my first response.

        Learn. To. Read.

        D.
        ————
        “You start with a lie, spin your story, while acknowledging your error in passing.”

        • Big Dog says:

          Right Darrel, and you fail to see there is no difference. What is a capital gain?

          A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset,

          Therefore using capital gains investments is the same as saying capital gains.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “…using capital gains investments is the same as saying capital gains.”>>

          DAR
          Then why did you make the following distinction?

          “[Obama] just said that his plan… will involve… ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses.”

          Later changed to:

          “He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments…”

          Of Obama’s claim above you said:

          “This is nearly the exact thing Rush Limbaugh TOLD Obama needed to be done.”

          But of course that’s false, Limbaugh’s claim didn’t mention small businesses at all!

          “These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts…”

          So who’s really telling the whoppers? Your main point in this article is that supposedly Obama has embraced some idea of Limbaugh but it’s based on a distortion by you. Obama spoke specifically of a capital gains tax cut for “small business investment,” Limbaugh just said “capital gains” which of course includes the huge category of personal capital gains tax. Completely, different thus making your whole thesis based upon a whopper.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            I did not make a distinction and nothing was later changed. In the first sentence I used the usual term capital gains and in the second I used the words Obama said.

            If you would read the article where the quote came from you would see that he indeed mentions small business. I will tell you who is telling the whoppers. You are because you clipped what I wrote to justify your last paragraph.

            However, I said Nearly the exact same thing and the second half of the sentence, which you left out, is:

            He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments and Limbaugh called for a capital gains tax cut on individual capital gains as well. But this is a start.

            So, as usual, you are incorrect and you have once again twisted words and left others out in order to try and make a point.

            I am correct in this issue. Read the article and learn what was said at the time and then see what barry said now.

            It is not exactly the same, as I wrote, and I also wrote that it is a start.

            Keep grasping at straws. You might make sense one day. You guys will twist anything to protect Barry the liar.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “I did not make a distinction and nothing was later changed. In the first sentence I used the usual term capital gains and in the second I used the words Obama said.”>>

              DAR
              No, as everyone can see, in black and white, you said “he just said” (followed by something he did not say) in your very FIRST sentence. This sentence sets up your entire point, and it is based upon a falsehood. That is, something he did not say.

              Your first sentence, verbatim:

              “Obama the Great is giving his State of the Union Address and in it he just said that his plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs will involve giving tax credits to small businesses and ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses.”

              That’s not what he said, as I showed and referenced in my very first response.

              You qualify this error later, in passing, when you say:

              “He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments…”

              This sentence shows/reveals you DO in fact know the difference between what he actually said, and what you claimed he said, in your first sentence. This is why your later attempt to wiggle out of this by saying “there is no difference,” doesn’t work.

              Bottomline: your first sentence is wrong, indefensible.

              D.
              —————-
              ps. I see this a lot. We have had many rightwingers come to our freethinker forum over the years and I don’t know how many dozens of times I have seen them start with a patently, objectively, false statement in either their title or very first sentence. Probably something like 75% of the time. One fellow has to be 90% of the time.
              Best to not start the foundation of an article, with the title or first sentence, by building on a claim that is, objectively false. You do it a lot.

            • Big Dog says:

              Did you see any quotes around the words following he just said. That would be like you saying that you were going to Wal Mart and someone asking me where you are and I answer he said he was going to the store. It would not be a quote from you and I did not quote him.

              He said it, I did not quote him or use his exact words.

            • Darrel says:

              Is the following claim true or false?

              “…he just said that his plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs will involve giving tax credits to small businesses and ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses.”

              I know it looks like I am being terribly nit-picky here but let me explain why it’s important. This is a constant pattern of distortion. I don’t know if it’s on purpose or so ingrained its subconscious at this point.

              You very much want your above sentence to be true. If it were true, it would *almost* look like there might be some substance to your strained claim in your title. So you start with this sentence, which is quite objectively, false.

              Then later on, after some more patter, you get around to clarifying the claim a bit (thus acknowledging you know the difference between what Obama really said and what your first sentence claimed he said).

              But the damage is done. Many of your readers glossing over this stuff will catch the first sentence and nod approvingly, thinking you have said something true and substantive when you haven’t.

              This is a constant pattern and tactic of misinformation that guys like Rush use CONSTANTLY. It’s either sloppy, or dishonest, or quite likely both.

              Your claim that Obama said his plan would involve: “…ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses…” is not a variation of saying someone went to the store. This is because “Wal-Mart” is a synonym and subset of “store.” The words are entirely compatible and consistent. Unlike your first sentence, and what Obama actually said. Those two things are not compatible, as you acknowledged when you said:

              “He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments…”

              D.

            • Big Dog says:

              You are the king of half truths and sloppiness as you demonstrated in your last sentence, which you did before and it was demonstrated but let me add it again to put it back in context:

              He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments [YOU STOPPED HERE] and Limbaugh called for a capital gains tax cut on individual capital gains as well. But this is a start.

              The bold is where the difference lies, between capital gains on business which Obama discussed and the addition of capital gains on personal investments which is the addition Limbaugh mention and what I pointed out.

              You are sloppy at best and dishonest at worst, probably a little of both.

  3. Big Dog says:

    He admitted, tax cuts are the way to prosperity. If he would come completely on board things would get better much faster.

    • Adam says:

      Ah, the magic tax cut. We were so prosperous under Reagan and Bush. Yet, the tax and spend Clinton years damn near destroyed our economy. Thank God Bush came in and saved us with tax cuts in the last decade that made the 2000’s the most prosperous time in our history…

      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, we took in a lot of money under Reagan and Bush. Congress spent more than we had. Your Clinton delusion is amazing.

        • Adam says:

          I’m sorry but the only delusion is yours in thinking tax cuts are a cure all.

        • Blake says:

          No Adam, they are just HALF of the equation- the other half is, of course, TO QUIT SPENDING- something Politicians cannot seem to do- and this goes for BOTH parties here.
          But to even begin to think that a “freeze” in spending, when the spending has been jacked up so high (and then we will keep it at that unsustainable level by “freezing it”), is ludicrous on its face, and only a moron like Barry would think that this would fly unnoticed by the American People.

  4. Adam says:

    “Obama opted for the spending and unemployment is now at 10% and his Stimulus has been a bust.”

    Ignoring the fact that a big chunk of the stimulus involves tax cuts, right? I guess it’s only the spending parts of the stimulus that are a bust then, right? The tax cuts are fine and dandy?

    “By making this proposal, Barack Obama has admitted that the liberal ideology is wrong. He has admitted that liberal tax and spend policies do not work. He has admitted that liberalism and its ways is a complete hoax.”

    Obama spent the good part of an hour promoting increased federal dollars for college eduction, clean energy initiatives, health care reform, and tax increases on the wealthy. But what do you get out of it? Obama also calls for something resembling what Rush Windbagh said once and therefore liberalism is DEAD! Right. You must have been playing one of those state of the union address drinking games because you’re not making any sense at all…

  5. Big Dog says:

    Well I don’t drink so I could not play one of the games and I am happy. I would have had to drink 96 shots for each time he said “I”. Saying that a large portion went to tax cuts and it actually happening are two different things. A small part of the stimulus was spent and we have seen billions of that wasted, used for political payoff, and pet projects that do not create jobs. Not to mention billions in pork that had nothing to do with the stimulus.

    In my family there are people who make money in ranges along the entire spectrum and non of them have seen any tax cuts. In fact, the taxes on my paycheck went up a little bit.

    Obama spent a good portion talking about SPENDING MORE MONEY after calling for a freeze. You think these things are good but they will not create jobs and will not stimulate the economy.

    • Adam says:

      “…and we have seen billions of that wasted…”

      One man’s waste is another man’s beaver management. Just be careful how you define such waste or you might end up looking silly like John McCain.

      “In my family there are people who make money in ranges along the entire spectrum and non of them have seen any tax cuts.”

      Anecdotal and irrelevant. The tax cuts are real.

      “Obama spent a good portion talking about SPENDING MORE MONEY after calling for a freeze.”

      And yet you say that Obama “admitted that liberalism and its ways is a complete hoax.” Strange, even for you.

      • Big Dog says:

        The AMT patch is not a tax cut. It is done every year because the Congress has been screwing people with the AMT for decades. The AMT was originally targeted for people making over a million dollars so they could not use loopholes to reduce their taxes too much (God forbid). It was never indexed for inflation so many middle class people get hit with the AMT each year. The patch is necessary otherwise all taxpayers would eventually be subject to it. Not a tax cut.

        The Making Work Pay provision is not a tax cut and it is not a change in the tax rate. It is a rebate like the ones Bush gave when he was in office (though his were lump sum). These are not tax cuts and anyone who thinks they are is out of their minds.

  6. victoria says:

    “Change has not come fast enough,” Obama acknowledged Wednesday night before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions.”
    He just flat doesn’t get it.

  7. Adam says:

    I swear though, when Obama was calling for earmark reform I heard some members of congress howling like an old hound dog that just had his tail stepped on. Anybody else catch that? Everybody wants to cut pork until it comes to their own districts…

    • Blake says:

      If they show that clip again, where Barry is speaking of “vetoing” earmarks- just look at Pelosi’s face as she turns and says something to Unca’ Joe- she is not a happy camper- she will need a heck of a lot of botox to smooth out THOSE wrinkles.

  8. victoria says:

    “And now one year later the worst of the storm is over.”
    What a crock of huey.
    There wasn’t an empty seat in the house!!!…so what.
    Dozens of standing ovations–from Democrats I am sure–so what.

    • Adam says:

      Did I miss the part where we failed to stop the financial systems from imploding and our stock market from declining and our 600,000 a month job losses from declining? Because if that’s still going on then how dare he say the worst of the storm is over…

      • Adam says:

        I mean, GDP is still declining by 5% a quarter right? Houses aren’t being sold? Consumer confidence is at an all time low? How dare Obama project a sense of optimism when we’re just days away from total collapse of our economy…

        • Big Dog says:

          Housing sales down 17% for December so yes.

        • Blake says:

          The jobs lost are so misleading-carpenters, for instance, are not counted, nor are bricklayers, and most of the building trade, because we are seen as “one man companies”- the ultimate small business- but we are not eligible to apply for aid- and thus are not counted- and with EXISTING home sales down 17%, and NEW home starts down 22% in some places, that is a LOT of unemployed people not being counted.

      • Big Dog says:

        3 million jobs lost since he took office. The financial systems would have worked out fine with some failing and some getting stronger which is how it should work.

        He did acknowledge that Bush started the process so if it is a “success” he gets some of the credit.

        I did not want either to do it. Let them fail.

      • Adam says:

        You folks live in a dream world where you can pretend the economy is doing bad because it’s Obama in office. When Obama said “now one year later the worst of the storm is over” it was true. Or maybe you can tell us how is it not true?

  9. […] Was he channeling Bush even as he repeatedly dissed him? Or was he channeling Limbaugh? […]