Obama Limbaugh economic plan 2009

[Guest]

Rush has presented a serious Economic plan. It sounds good. It's a long read or listen but check it out. What do you think?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012609/content/01125108.guest.html

[Guest]

Rush has presented a serious Economic plan. It sounds good. It's a long read or listen but check it out. What do you think?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012609/content/01125108.guest.html
The corporate tax rate has a significant effect on corporate profitability - and profitability is the basis for most investment decisions. Moneys paid to taxes are moneys that are not used for corporate reinvestment or dividends to stockholders.

When dividend rates go down, investors dump stocks which produce less on the investment, the value of that company's stock dips, and the market goes further down and....well, we're there!

Even a 5% per annum cut in the corporate tax rate for the next 3 years would boost dividends paid, and the value of those stocks rise accordingly.

It's really that simple - we just keep looking for ways to make it complicated...

[Guest]

There's no chance that anyone on this forum or any other is going to be able to come up with the logic on which the final stimulus plan -- or no plan, but little chance of that -- gets constructed. What none of us can build into the legislation that will be voted on are...
The elements that will stimulate the economy the fastest, as developed by some very smart economists -- far smarter than me or probably anyone else posting on TOTV.
Obama's campaign promises, to the extent they are consistent with economic stimulus.
And the different idealogy and philosophy introduced by the GOP in the drafting process.
Trying to anticipate and project just those three simple elements into a plan seems impossible to me. I just hope that, if the bill gets too far off the track of what will work, that the President will simply threaten a veto and tell the Congress to go back to the drawing board to make the corrections he and his economic team think are important.

Having said that, I think the disagreements in the Congress will somehow be ironed out and an acceptable bill passed by mid-February. That by itself will be a huge and very encouraging change in the way the Congress does business.

By the way, I can't totally embrace Limbaugh's plan. I will complement him for at least coming up with a plan, as opposed to just continuing his right-wing rants. His numbers are a little bit off, but not by much. Among other things, I can't agree with his "split" based on the popular vote. Obama's six-point margin is a huge plurality and his ideas should get a higher weight based on the broad sweep of his victory. Besides, George Bush didn't even win the popular vote and he gave little to his political opponents little other than the figurative back of his hand during the six years when the GOP controlled both the White House and the Congress. In the interest of gaining an even broader consensus, President Obama has already given the GOP far more input into the legislative process than Bush ever gave the Democrats at any time during his administration. That by itself is not a good reason to reject Limbaugh's proposal, that would be just a continuation of political "getting even", but it is a statement of fact. Maybe the best reason why the allocation of that much public money to tax reductions is a bad idea is that such tax reductions have not worked recently. The economists -- both conservative and liberal -- who have been involved in drafting the stimulus legislation all agree that in these economic conditions, it is far more likely that the public will either pay down debt or increase savings with tax reductions, not spend it to begin the desired "increased demand-production-increased employment-increased GDP-increased tax revenues" economic cycle. They have all said that designation of stimulus monies to projects that will require actual spending are a more certain way to reverse the economic slide and begin to grow economic activity. The idea of directing more tax savings into the hands of corporations also doesn't work as well in these economic conditions as it did when used to "tweak" the performance of an otherwise strong economy. The corporations are "upstream" of the consumer and by themselves can't produce the necessary increases in consumer spending to stimulate the economy. There's a proper time for corporate tax benefits, but it's not right now.

[Guest]

My personal view is to leave the economy alone and it will take care of itself.

The Obama does not stimulate the private sector. Most of what they want to do is provide roads and bridges and the like to lower government entities whom we have already been paying to do this work, through our taxes.

OMB says that it will not stimulate the economy. 2/3 of the money wont be spent until the down turn is over.

If it won't stimulate the economy, why is it proposed? I say make the bush tax cuts permanent. Give taxpayers. INCOME TAX PAYERS a rebate.

What do I know? I'm just the sap that has to pay for the pork.

Yoda

[Guest]

Let's be blunt. There has been no - repeat, no - analysis of anything about this "stimulus bill," because there has been NO TIME ALLOTTED for any comprehensive review of the line items and their value, if any at all.

The average shopper spends more time determining whether a $100 purchase is worth the money than what our elected representatives are doing on the $891,000,000,000 stimulus bill. Where's the common sense here?

I really don't care how many people voted for Pres. Obama - it was not a coronation to provide America with an omnipotent monarch. Wanting the economy to get better, and having an administration concerned that it does get better, does not mean he and his posse are to throw away COMMON SENSE and prudent logic before committing $891,000,000,000 to a spending plan which has no detailed review by those who are supposed to protect the taxpayer from run-rampant spending.

With a national population of 300 million, this stimulus package equates to $2,970 per every man, woman and child, whether they pay taxes or not! Does that really make any sense?

So, now we see all of the Congressfolk line up like pigs at the trough to pork their next election and see that their key supporters and contributors get paid off. We can really be "proud" of this! Darned little oversight over generalized spending based on to-be-determined politically-charged packages.

Here's for a 75% flushing of Congressional incumbents in 2010.

[Guest]

The news today is the stimulus plan only has 3% of it actually going into the economy the first 12 months.

Did you hear the republican senator today? Can't remember his name now but he said Bush took us to the cleaners the first time around and now Obama is taking us to the cleaners the second time.

[Guest]

...

Did you hear the republican senator today? Can't remember his name now but he said Bush took us to the cleaners the first time around and now Obama is taking us to the cleaners the second time.
I guess that qualifies as bipartisanship!