Limbaugh Predicts Economic Collapse If Obama Wins

[Jumping Frog]

Every single time tax rates have been cut, tax revenues have increased. That historical fact really is that simple.

[RoyGBiv]

Rational people will behave in very predictable ways.

I think that fear and uncertainty make people think less rationally.

Actually, "rational" people will behave quite rationally (and for the most part, predictably) to fear and uncertainty. Just because a person is fearful does not make them "irrational". "Rational", the way I intended it above, excludes only those with dementia and other illnesses of the mind and or personality.

For example... today there is widespread economic fear and uncertainty. What is happening? People are spending less, corporations are spending less, holding on to their reserves in case they are needed later for more important things than Starbucks and dinners out.

[WildBill]

Every single time tax rates have been cut, tax revenues have increased. That historical fact really is that simple.

Maybe some people don't understand the term tax RATE.

[RoyGBiv]

Every single time tax rates have been cut, tax revenues have increased. That historical fact really is that simple.

Maybe some people don't understand the term tax RATE.

Exactly....

When activity increases taxes collected generally increases...

The lower the tax on a "thing" the lower the cost of that "thing", therefore, the higher demand for that "thing"
Thing = Work or profitable activity or return on risk, etc.

Lower rates = greater return from "work" (more take home pay in your paycheck, or more profit in your risky business investment). Greater return spurs greater effort, resulting in greater activity and greater total tax revenue because the base of activity is greater...

More specifically in the opposite direction.. I read an article by John Lott yesterday... I quoted it here somewhere... The article said, essentially, that for people who earn between 10 and 40,000 dollars per year and are on government assistance, they have a marginal tax rate of about 82%. That is, for every dollar more they earn by doing productive work, they give back 82 cents in the form of reduced welfare, taxes, etc. If your work only netted you $0.18 on the dollar, what incentive do you have to engage in greater economic activity? None. This is Obama's way.... He thinks this is a good economic plan. He's just removed the welfare to work requirement. What do you think will happen to all those rational people on welfare who give up $0.82 of every extra dollar they earn? Of course they will stay home and collect welfare. It would be irrational to do otherwise.

ETA: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... e-run-out/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Obama has increased the effective penalty even for low- and moderate-income families earning more money. Not only do people lose federal earned income tax credits as well as pay federal and state taxes as their income increases, but they also lose the ever expanding government handouts including housing subsidies, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps.

The loss of these welfare programs and taxes is so large that when the average person earning between $10,000 and $40,000 makes an additional dollar they lose 82 cents -- 53 cents worth of government welfare programs and another 29 cents is lost through reduced tax credits and higher taxes. Who wants to work more when they lose 82 cents of each additional dollar that they earn?

[Topbuilder]

Rush? I'm a big fan. The man is brilliant. I find most that do not like him have not listened to the show.

When he stated "I want him to fail" Millions of people awoke to the fact that Obummer successes will equal Americas failures. Look how many issues the American people were standing on the other side of the line from this administration... purely prophetic.
Over paid? Hardly. Were he to have been paid to tune up Romney's RNC speach it would have created a 10 point swing from where we are now.
Romney should have staffers listen to the show every day. He needs to come out to the right of Romney in the debates. That's going to require effort as the DNC has adopted this new "values" platform.

[The Annoyed Man]

Rush? I'm a big fan. The man is brilliant. I find most that do not like him have not listened to the show.

I listened to his show daily for almost a year. That's a fair chance. I don't like his show.

[Jumping Frog]

I view him as entertainment, but not as a sage.

In general, he's got good conservative principles but his understanding of economics is weak.

[Topbuilder]

Rush? I'm a big fan. The man is brilliant. I find most that do not like him have not listened to the show.

I listened to his show daily for almost a year. That's a fair chance. I don't like his show.

That's a fair chance. Is there anyone in talk radio you do like? Just curious.

[atticus]

This election is not about Rush. If someone doesn't like what he says, he can turn off the radio. Our problem is that the only way we can turn off Obama is to vote him out of office. Rush does not influence the economy, nor does he set policy, nor does he appoint federal judges and czars, nor does he dictate foreign policy. Arguing against Rush is setting up and punching a straw man. Obama is the issue. Not Rush. Nor Rachel Maddow, for that matter.

[rwg3]

So much of this type of discussion is just wind. It misses the reality that exists in Washington. The concepts of rational actions, unfettered economics and tax rates are mere talking points for the benefit of the public. At this point it really doesn't matter who says what on the campaign trail. The economic process is set and running itself. The only thing a president can do is act at the edges on flashpoint issues that really have minimal impact on the larger economy. There are too many vested interests who have subverted the independance of the Congress particularly in financial matters to allow any actions that will meaningfully change the system.
Economic theory must be tempered with some regulations or else we will be back in the era of the monopolies, which was generally considered a bad thing unless you happened to own one. Business usually dont invest primarily for tax reasons. I have not met a business owner who says I am going to to retire by saving on taxes. They almost always say they are looking for the next idea that will capture more market share, or increase revenue on the existing business base. Then they complain about taxes, but also will admit that they had to make some money to pay tax the on. If they are only making enough income to clear expenses each year they probably wont last long in any event, and that is a business model problem not a tax problem.
Rush is a fascinating entertainer. He has figured out how to attract an audience and cater or pander (you choose which) to their fears. HIs advertisers love him and he is trapped in that cycle of needing to not break the pattern that has made him succesful. I rarely listen to him at this point. He has gone past the bounds of helpful dialogus and now rants and rages at a level that is painful to listen to. I dont trust his fact checking and therefore I dont trust his dialogue. Actually he is in many ways comparable to Howard Stern who is at the opposite end of the spectrum but working the same business model.

[Heartland Patriot]

The relationship between tax rates and tax revenue are described by the Laffer Curve. From what I understand about it, the curve describes the spot where the tax rate generates the most revenue. If you have a 0% tax rate, you take in nothing...and if you have a 100% tax rate...you still don't take in all that much because no one will produce since it will be taken anyway. So, the trick is to find the "sweet spot" where people will work hard, make money, and pay in to "the system" without trying to hide the money, and that is the peak of the curve...I'm not a mathematician or economist, just a mechanic, so I don't know how they derive all that...but its a helpful concept when thinking about this stuff.

[MoJoeWrkn]

How about a "sweet spot" where the government only takes what is absolutely needed and spends it conscientiously ....wouldn't that be nice!

[Heartland Patriot]

How about a "sweet spot" where the government only takes what is absolutely needed and spends it conscientiously ....wouldn't that be nice!

Yes, I agree. I posted what I did because some still believe that ANY lowering of taxes on "the rich" is just creating Scrooge McDucks who swim around in vaults of money. (Does anyone really think actual rich people have stacks of money sitting around? The rhetoric would SUGGEST that some people do.) I wanted to point out that LOWERING the taxes CAN generate more revenue to the government, IF the rate is set at the correct level, which is not necessarily higher.

[WildBill]

So much of this type of discussion is just wind.

Rush is a fascinating entertainer. He has figured out how to attract an audience and cater or pander (you choose which) to their fears. His advertisers love him and he is trapped in that cycle of needing to not break the pattern that has made him succesful.

about the wind.

Based on the number of listeners, I think Rush is a successful entertainer. He is not my style. I find him annoying, boring and a blowhard so I don't listen to him. As you stated his advertisers love him, and he is raking in the money for them and himself. I also don't like that some people think he is a spokesman for "conservatives". IMO, he is a spokesman for himself.

My Andy Rooney question: Have you ever noticed that Rush Limbaugh always repeats the same sentence three times?

[The Annoyed Man]

Rush? I'm a big fan. The man is brilliant. I find most that do not like him have not listened to the show.

I listened to his show daily for almost a year. That's a fair chance. I don't like his show.

That's a fair chance. Is there anyone in talk radio you do like? Just curious.

Yes, actually, there are a few: Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt all provide thoughtful and detailed conservative analysis, and Hugh Hewitt is a former White House staffer who has good information on how the White House usually operates....things which are common regardless of whose administration is in power. I like Prager because he insists on moral clarity in all things as the basis for his conservative thought, and in the muddy waters of today's political landscape (muddiness which Limbaugh helps to stir up a bit), clarity is a rare and precious commodity. There are few people on the planet who have the instant command of the FACTS of anything on hand as does Michael Medved. He jokes about himself that his briefcase is always stuffed to overflowing with clippings from articles of factual analysis, but he has been doing it for so long that he's got it all memorized by now, and he can not only quote the fact on command, but he can quote its source and source date on command. His information is ALWAYS current. He must have a really big head to store it all, but he never makes it boring. He is also, by the way a brilliant historian, and he occasionally will do a radio show on the topic of something like the personal relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and the poignancy of their deaths within hours of one another.

But in general, I prefer to listen to the people who actually have the experience on The Hill, because their knowledge of the internal workings of government is always more complete than an outsider's like Limbaugh's.....or mine, for that matter. And I place the opinions of historians and people of high moral clarity along with the Hugh Hewitts in higher esteem than I do the opinions of the chattering classes. Limbaugh is often right about things. It's not that I disagree politicallly with most of what he says, it's just that I think that politiics is too important to be common entertainment, and Limbaugh is an entertainer and a leader of the chattering classes. I don't much care for the bombastic style, as much as anything else.

Unfortunately, Hewitt is no longer carried on the local talk radio station I listen to here in the DFW area, but he is very knowledgeable, and he is also one of the original bloggers at TownHall.com