Why not Rush's plan?

[Pastor Larry]

Here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Why not this plan?

Don't focus on who it is. Forget that it is Rush. For once in the life of the political forum, let's focus on substance.

What is substantively wrong with this plan?

Moderators, please delete any posts that focus on Rush as a person. He is not the topic here.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html



Why not this plan?

Don't focus on who it is. Forget that it is Rush. For once in the life of the political forum, let's focus on substance.

What is substantively wrong with this plan?

Moderators, please delete any posts that focus on Rush as a person. He is not the topic here.

Neither has the right to spend money. Congress does. And Limbaugh was not elected to anything. If he wants to play, he should go run for office. He is a citizen like anyone else here, and has no more right to make such a determination than do you or I.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps you missed it, MP (or just ignored it), but the thread is not about Rush. It is about the plan. I realize he is a private citizen (remember Obama said he wanted to hear from them). I specifically asked that this focus on the plan.

So forget where the plan comes from. It is irrelevant for this discussion.

Why not the plan? What is wrong or right with the actual ideas?

 

[StefanM]

Temporary tax cuts, IMO, will not do much to stimulate growth. Individuals will not make long-term decisions based on temporary cuts. Now, permanent tax cuts are another matter, but the budget is hemorrhaging as is.

I do think it would be wise to cut the corporate tax. Between the 35% tax rate and Sarbanes-Oxley, we are driving business overseas.

 

[saturneptune]

Perhaps you missed it, MP (or just ignored it), but the thread is not about Rush. It is about the plan. I realize he is a private citizen (remember Obama said he wanted to hear from them). I specifically asked that this focus on the plan.

So forget where the plan comes from. It is irrelevant for this discussion.

Why not the plan? What is wrong or right with the actual ideas?

The plan sounds fine to me. I am basically against any government intervention.

You would have been well served by just presenting the plan without mentioning the name of the author. You know what kind of reaction it is going to get from both liberal and conservative alike. It only serves to take the thread off track.

At least use a source that has some similance of Christian values.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Perhaps you missed it, MP (or just ignored it), but the thread is not about Rush. It is about the plan. I realize he is a private citizen (remember Obama said he wanted to hear from them). I specifically asked that this focus on the plan.

So forget where the plan comes from. It is irrelevant for this discussion.

Why not the plan? What is wrong or right with the actual ideas?

No, I ignored nothing. I answered the opening question...why not? I know it matters not. I addressed the fact that Rush...or ANYONE unelected can't determine tax cuts. THAT is the flaw in the plan...not that it is Rush's idea. That it is unconstitutional. Did you miss that or ignore it?

Edited to add: Even if it were you, me, or Joe the Plumber, it isn't legal, nor does a private individual get to make such determinations about the public funds. In a republican form of government, we elect people to do that for us.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I thought about not mentioning who it was, but the link made it clear, and someone would probably accuse me of something underhanded. Besides, it is pretty well known where the plan comes from I think.

Hopefully we are mature enough to focus on the issues and not the personality.

 

[saturneptune]

I thought about not mentioning who it was, but the link made it clear, and someone would probably accuse me of something underhanded. Besides, it is pretty well known where the plan comes from I think.

Hopefully we are mature enough to focus on the issues and not the personality.

If we must spend government money, the plan is much better thought out than the one going through Congress.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I ignored nothing. I answered the opening question...why not? I know it matters not. I addressed the fact that Rush...or ANYONE unelected can't determine tax cuts. THAT is the flaw in the plan...not that it is Rush's idea. That it is unconstitutional. Did you miss that or ignore it?

Let's stop playing stupid games. You were not making a valid point about the plan. Your point was about process. Again, that's not a particularly fine distinction, and I rather imagine that you know that very well, but couldnd't pass up the chance to say something about Rush. So get over it, and get on topic, or don't post.

Pretend it is Obama's plan, or McConnell, or Pelosi, or anyone you choose.

What is wrong with the plan?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Let's stop playing stupid games. You were not making a valid point about the plan. Your point was about process. Again, that's not a particularly fine distinction, and I rather imagine that you know that very well, but couldnd't pass up the chance to say something about Rush. So get over it, and get on topic, or don't post.

Pretend it is Obama's plan, or McConnell, or Pelosi, or anyone you choose.

What is wrong with the plan?

I don't consider following the Constitution a stupid game. Perhaps this exercise could be thusly described however.

I said nothing about Rush, other than he is not Constitutionally eligible. So get off your high horse. I have already told you what is wrong with the plan. Even if it were Obama's, Pelosi's, or Marvin the Martian's. You sir are ignoring the flaw that has been pointed out, and now falsely accusing me of saying something derogatory about your radio god. I said nothing at all negative about Rush here. Not one thing. So quit derailing your own thread.

If you think I attacked Rush in this thread, show me where. Can't find it, can you? SO get over your hypersensitivity to your hero.

 

[just-want-peace]

I don't consider following the Constitution a stupid game. Perhaps this exercise could be thusly described however.

I said nothing about Rush, other than he is not Constitutionally eligible. So get off your high horse. I have already told you what is wrong with the plan. Even if it were Obama's, Pelosi's, or Marvin the Martian's. You sir are ignoring the flaw that has been pointed out, and now falsely accusing me of saying something derogatory about your radio god. I said nothing at all negative about Rush here. Not one thing. So quit derailing your own thread.

If you think I attacked Rush in this thread, show me where. Can't find it, can you? SO get over your hypersensitivity to your hero.

God has given you a gift, MP, use it wisely!

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't consider following the Constitution a stupid game.

I don't either. But that's not the topic, as you can tell by reading.

Perhaps this exercise could be thusly described however.

Your contributions have certainly made it so. You are making the issue about process. The issue is about the plan itself. If Congress passed this plan, what would be wrong with it?

I said nothing about Rush, other than he is not Constitutionally eligible.

Rush isn't the topic.

So get off your high horse.

I am not on one. I am trying to foster and intelligent conversation and you are thwarting that with your contributions.

I have already told you what is wrong with the plan.

No you didn't. You said, "neither has the right to spend money." That is a process issue (who can spend it), not a plan issue (how should it be spent). Again, that distinction is not all that fine, so it doesn't take a great amount of thought to understand it. You should be able to get it.

You sir are ignoring the flaw that has been pointed out, and now falsely accusing me of saying something derogatory about your radio god. I said nothing at all negative about Rush here. Not one thing. ... If you think I attacked Rush in this thread, show me where.

Let's explore this a bit: You said, I falsely accused you of saying something derogatory about Rush. Where did I say you said something derogatory or made an attack against Rush? Please quote it for me. If you can't find it, apologize. Either will be fine with me.

Second, you call Rush my radio god and my hero. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have listened to Rush more in the last week than in the last ten years, and that equals about two hours. I don't even like Rush. As I have often said, if I am listening to the radio from noon to three (which is rarely), I am listening to Jim Rome. That is well known here at the BB, so you are simply not telling the truth.

So you have some matters here to clear up.

1) You need to find where I said you attacked Rush or said something derogatory about him, or you need to apologize for making false accusations and saying things about fellows posters that aren't true.

2) You need to apologize for saying that Rush is my radio god or my hero. Neither is true, and you know it.

 

[Aaron]

Hopefully we are mature enough to focus on the issues and not the personality.

Get used to disappointment.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What's so constitutional about the bailout ? That's what's being rammed down our throat, not Limbaugh's idea.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What's so constitutional about the bailout ?

That's not the topic here.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It's my response to MP's caterwauling.

Like I've said for years, the only time the left will use the constitution is when they think conservatives will be made to look bad.

 

[Salty]

Here it is: What is substantively wrong with this plan?
quote]

Whats wrong with Obams plan:

1. Way too much pork!
2. Illegals may recieve a stimilus check
3. Most of what is to be spent on should be under total control of the State or Commonwealth. That includes the taxes needed; and no interference from the Feds.

 

[JustChristian]

Here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html



Why not this plan?

Don't focus on who it is. Forget that it is Rush. For once in the life of the political forum, let's focus on substance.

What is substantively wrong with this plan?

Moderators, please delete any posts that focus on Rush as a person. He is not the topic here.

Rush isn't an elected official and doesn't have the right to spend tax money.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I guess the only problem with the plan is who came up with it. Nobody can argue one point. Typical.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Rush isn't an elected official and doesn't have the right to spend tax money.

Of course not, but that's not the issue. You, like MP, are talking about process for some reason. No single individual, including Obama, has the right. But this is a different subject.

Why not talk about the plan?