Limbaugh Predicts Economic Collapse If Obama Wins

[WildBill]

To my mind Rush is the conservative counterpart to Chris Matthews.
Michael Moore's counterpart is Dinesh D'Souza (2016)

Except that Dinesh D'Souza, unlike Michael Moore, does let facts get in the way.

Could you elaborate, please? I understand 'not letting the facts get in the way of a good story', but are you saying D'Souza let the facts get in the way of the 2016 movie? What does that mean?

I think that The Annoyed Man is being facetious.

[WildBill]

To my mind Rush is the conservative counterpart to Chris Matthews.
Michael Moore's counterpart is Dinesh D'Souza (2016)

Except that Dinesh D'Souza, unlike Michael Moore, does let facts get in the way.

I trust Rush as much as, if not more than, any other blowhard on TV, the radio or the internet... including this forum.

Trying to win a popularity contest?

Check this out!

[Jumping Frog]

To my mind Rush is the conservative counterpart to Chris Matthews.
Michael Moore's counterpart is Dinesh D'Souza (2016)

Except that Dinesh D'Souza, unlike Michael Moore, does let facts get in the way.

Could you elaborate, please? I understand 'not letting the facts get in the way of a good story', but are you saying D'Souza let the facts get in the way of the 2016 movie? What does that mean?

He is saying that Michael Moore does not let facts get in his way, also known as he brazenly lies without any resemblance to real facts.

Whereas Dinesh D'Souza does let facts enter into his argument, he is telling the truth.

[The Annoyed Man]

To my mind Rush is the conservative counterpart to Chris Matthews.
Michael Moore's counterpart is Dinesh D'Souza (2016)

Except that Dinesh D'Souza, unlike Michael Moore, does let facts get in the way.

Could you elaborate, please? I understand 'not letting the facts get in the way of a good story', but are you saying D'Souza let the facts get in the way of the 2016 movie? What does that mean?

He is saying that Michael Moore does not let facts get in his way, also known as he brazenly lies without any resemblance to real facts.

Whereas Dinesh D'Souza does let facts enter into his argument, he is telling the truth.

Exactly.

[Slowplay]

To my mind Rush is the conservative counterpart to Chris Matthews.
Michael Moore's counterpart is Dinesh D'Souza (2016)

Except that Dinesh D'Souza, unlike Michael Moore, does let facts get in the way.

Could you elaborate, please? I understand 'not letting the facts get in the way of a good story', but are you saying D'Souza let the facts get in the way of the 2016 movie? What does that mean?

He is saying that Michael Moore does not let facts get in his way, also known as he brazenly lies without any resemblance to real facts.

Whereas Dinesh D'Souza does let facts enter into his argument, he is telling the truth.

Exactly.

I was hoping that's what you meant. I just got stuck on the "does let facts get in the way" part - guess I was overthinking how the facts got in the way...e.g., maybe there were facts omitted from 2016 (misleading by omission).

I am quite accustomed to hearing (and saying) "don't the the truth get in your way or stop you" (from telling your tall tale/story) - just wasn't sure if you had a critique of D'Souza's 2016. That would have surprised me.

[JALLEN]

Why does anyone think Rush Limbaugh is a better forecaster of future economic events than anybody else?

Warren Buffett claims the role of stock forecasters is to make weathermen and fortune tellers look good.

It may happen the way Rush thinks or some other way; there is no telling.

Even "experts" can't accurately predict the ups and downs of the stock market well enough to make any real money. I don't remember it of my own knowledge but I have read about Yale's Professor Irving Fisher in October of 1929 observing that "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." And there have been a great many other "forecasts" which in the event proved, ahhh, faulty.

[The Annoyed Man]

I was hoping that's what you meant. I just got stuck on the "does let facts get in the way" part - guess I was overthinking how the facts got in the way...e.g., maybe there were facts omitted from 2016 (misleading by omission).

I am quite accustomed to hearing (and saying) "don't the the truth get in your way or stop you" (from telling your tall tale/story) - just wasn't sure if you had a critique of D'Souza's 2016. That would have surprised me.

I saw it. I think that it was factual, and I think that it did not exaggerate. That said, there is no doubt that D'Souza is no friend of Obama's and is definitely hoping this movie will influence the election in Romney's favor.

I actually have a personal connection to the theory of anti-colonialism that D'Souza was espousing in his movie. My mother, who is EXTREMELY liberal, is a retired professor (Caltech), and she is French. She was born in and raised in Algiers when Algeria was still a French colony. My uncle (her brother) was a provincial governor in Morocco (where I was born when it was still a colony). My great aunt was the governess of Moroccan King Hassan II (reign 3 March 1961 to 23 July 1999) when Morocco was still a French colony. My mother's great grandfather was one of the two founders of the Zig-Zag rolling papers company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig-Zag_(c ... of_Zig-Zag) which he started as part of his French imports business in Morocco which was a primary contractor of supplies like wine and tobacco to French troops stationed in the north African colonies. So my mother's side of the family is very much tied to European colonialism in the third world.

My mother, motivated possibly by rebellion against her own family history, is virulently anti-colonialist, and she espouses EXACTLY the same positions on the issues that D'Souza attributes to Obama, including being a big fan of Edward Said, the Islamofascist apologist who Obama claims as one of his influences. So there truly is a large part of Academia, of which Obama likes to believe that he is a part, which holds to this whole anti-colonialist, pro-Islam, anti-Israel ideology, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that he shares these beliefs, particularly when his actions seem to back that up. Whether or not Obama is deliberately, consciously TRYING to transfer American wealth to the third world as D'Souza claims, I don't know for sure. But for certain that IS the effect of his policies, so it doesn't really matter if that is Obama's intent or not. Either way, it goes beyond mismanagement and borders on treason. So yes, I believe that Obama's actions are directly opposed to American interests, and he is a better advocate for the third world than he is for his own country. In that, I believe that D'Souza is right on.....and like I said, my own cultural exposures absolutely support this notion.

[Heartland Patriot]

I was hoping that's what you meant. I just got stuck on the "does let facts get in the way" part - guess I was overthinking how the facts got in the way...e.g., maybe there were facts omitted from 2016 (misleading by omission).

I am quite accustomed to hearing (and saying) "don't the the truth get in your way or stop you" (from telling your tall tale/story) - just wasn't sure if you had a critique of D'Souza's 2016. That would have surprised me.

I saw it. I think that it was factual, and I think that it did not exaggerate. That said, there is no doubt that D'Souza is no friend of Obama's and is definitely hoping this movie will influence the election in Romney's favor.

I actually have a personal connection to the theory of anti-colonialism that D'Souza was espousing in his movie. My mother, who is EXTREMELY liberal, is a retired professor (Caltech), and she is French. She was born in and raised in Algiers when Algeria was still a French colony. My uncle (her brother) was a provincial governor in Morocco (where I was born when it was still a colony). My great aunt was the governess of Moroccan King Hassan II (reign 3 March 1961 to 23 July 1999) when Morocco was still a French colony. My mother's great grandfather was one of the two founders of the Zig-Zag rolling papers company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig-Zag_(c ... of_Zig-Zag) which he started as part of his French imports business in Morocco which was a primary contractor of supplies like wine and tobacco to French troops stationed in the north African colonies. So my mother's side of the family is very much tied to European colonialism in the third world.

My mother, motivated possibly by rebellion against her own family history, is virulently anti-colonialist, and she espouses EXACTLY the same positions on the issues that D'Souza attributes to Obama, including being a big fan of Edward Said, the Islamofascist apologist who Obama claims as one of his influences. So there truly is a large part of Academia, of which Obama likes to believe that he is a part, which holds to this whole anti-colonialist, pro-Islam, anti-Israel ideology, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that he shares these beliefs, particularly when his actions seem to back that up. Whether or not Obama is deliberately, consciously TRYING to transfer American wealth to the third world as D'Souza claims, I don't know for sure. But for certain that IS the effect of his policies, so it doesn't really matter if that is Obama's intent or not. Either way, it goes beyond mismanagement and borders on treason. So yes, I believe that Obama's actions are directly opposed to American interests, and he is a better advocate for the third world than he is for his own country. In that, I believe that D'Souza is right on.....and like I said, my own cultural exposures absolutely support this notion.

I think those Dos Equis beer folks might owe you some money. It seems they may have used you as their template for "The World's Most Interesting Man".

Seriously, though, that IS one doozy of a family history.

[Slowplay]

Pretty fascinating personal connection to the anti-colonialist mindset.

Regarding Obama's intent, I see it more from the perspective of whether he and his administration are sufficiently competent. If you take the position that the admin. is competent, then intent can be reasonably determined based on the policy decisions made (when the outcome of those decisions should be apparent).

ETA: I also believe many in academia would object to 2016 based mainly on the light it shines on Obama and how the broader American public would react. Regarding the anti-colonialist perspective, many in academia would find solemn agreement (I'm specifically reminded of my International Relations professor from many moons ago, who espoused similar anti-colonial sentiments...when not talking up and fawning over his personal hero, Zbigniew Brzezinski...but I digress).

[VMI77]

Why does anyone think Rush Limbaugh is a better forecaster of future economic events than anybody else?

Warren Buffett claims the role of stock forecasters is to make weathermen and fortune tellers look good.

It may happen the way Rush thinks or some other way; there is no telling.

Even "experts" can't accurately predict the ups and downs of the stock market well enough to make any real money. I don't remember it of my own knowledge but I have read about Yale's Professor Irving Fisher in October of 1929 observing that "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." And there have been a great many other "forecasts" which in the event proved, ahhh, faulty.

The stock market isn't the issue, the issue is debt. Nothing is being done to address the issue, nor will anything be done. A collapse is mathematically inevitable --the only question is whether it will be a year from now or ten years from now. There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change. We've got 20 years left at the outside --though personally I think it will come sooner rather than later. Europe is in the same situation and may collapse first. The ruling class is just kicking the can down the road while it extracts every last possible dollar of wealth from the system.

And btw, the "experts" don't make money in the stock market by predicting ups and downs --that's gambling and experts don't gamble. The "experts" make their money because the system is rigged in their favor --and right now it's kinda hard for the big boys to lose money even on a gamble, since the money they're using to place their bets is provided to them for free.

[RoyGBiv]

There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

Tea Party, 2010...
Romney picked Ryan....

If those two alone don't appear to be "(some) political will to address the problem", I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

I'll of course concede that we have a long way to go, and that both major parties (and voters) are to blame for the current mess.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP
Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels
Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ey#Deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ney#Budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

Tea Party, 2010...
Romney picked Ryan....

If those two alone don't appear to be "(some) political will to address the problem", I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

I'll of course concede that we have a long way to go, and that both major parties (and voters) are to blame for the current mess.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP
Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels
Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ey#Deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ney#Budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ryan sometimes talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. I don't really have the energy to go into detail here, but if you're interested in what a hyper pro-capitalist financial guru has to say about Ryan, read through his postings on the subject here: http://market-ticker.org

As to those so called "honest" goals --they're sound bites --and range from laughable to meaningless.

1. 20% of GDP means continued deficit spending. Tax revenues are currently less than 16% of GDP, and historically, they've averaged 18.3% since 1970. A real spending cap would be budget = tax revenue. And btw, I'm pretty sure that 20% is only intended to apply to discretionary spending, which is meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ral_budget

2. Define non-security discretionary spending --this sounds like it means something....but in reality it's not only meaningless, but irrelevant. Discretionary spending is about 1/3 of the budget...which pretty much makes the proposal meaningless. What makes it irrelevant is the fact that exponential debt increase is what will collapse the government, not spending too much on highways and the Coast Guard. Exponential debt increase is driven by things like Medicare, Social Security, and Obamacare. The healthcare part of the budget alone will result in economic collapse if immediate reductions of about 40% are not made.

3. A simpler, smaller, smarter government. This is just a meaningless soundbite.

All in all, the proposals would be irrelevant even if they were serious and meaningful. The #1 problem in this country is the entitlement culture. Fixing this problem is politically impossible at this time, and if, if, we reach the point where it might be politically possible, it will already be too late. Half the country pays no taxes (not counting government employees who think a bookkeeping gimmick means they pay taxes). The political class has been creating a country of dependency for decades. No one getting booty from the State is willing to give up any of their booty, and there is no way any politician proposing serious measures to address our problems can be elected. If such a politician, by some astronomically improbable series of events got elected president, he'd never get any needed measure approved by Congress. Geez, half the country is supposedly still going to vote for Obama --and therein lies the really fundamental problem: the majority of Americans don't even know what a limited constitutional republic means, and if they did, they wouldn't want one.

[RoyGBiv]

The stock market isn't the issue, the issue is debt. <snip> ... There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

The #1 problem in this country is the entitlement culture.

You went and changed horses on me... A bit unfair...

I'll agree with you 100% that the culture of entitlement will be our downfall. Our Founding Fathers predicted it.

http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogs ... thers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

http://aolanswers.com/questions/foundin ... 8172757412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JALLEN]

The stock market isn't the issue, the issue is debt. Nothing is being done to address the issue, nor will anything be done. A collapse is mathematically inevitable --the only question is whether it will be a year from now or ten years from now. There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change. We've got 20 years left at the outside --though personally I think it will come sooner rather than later. Europe is in the same situation and may collapse first. The ruling class is just kicking the can down the road while it extracts every last possible dollar of wealth from the system.

And btw, the "experts" don't make money in the stock market by predicting ups and downs --that's gambling and experts don't gamble. The "experts" make their money because the system is rigged in their favor --and right now it's kinda hard for the big boys to lose money even on a gamble, since the money they're using to place their bets is provided to them for free.

You mean experts like John Corzine, former Chairman of Goldman-Sachs? Or the experts at the company formerly known as Lehman Brothers, or perhaps Bear Stearns? Maybe the experts at the old Merrill Lynch that lost untold billions in the "system... rigged in their favor?" Possibly the London Whale formerly at J.P. Morgan-Chase?

What good will wealth be if the mathematically inevitable economic collapse occurs? Will it still be wealth? Much of what counts as assets on balance sheets now won't be wealth if and when that happens.

The markets now are affected by the deleveraging that has progressed for some years, and by the central banker's efforts to soften the blow of deleveraging. In a way, you can't blame them for trying, since letting nature take its course is politically unpalatable. The ruling class here, politicians, get re-elected by bringing home the bacon, the more the better and more now than before or we find somebody else who can.

Anyway my point was that Limbaugh isn't a particularly impressive predictor. That my quote was this Professor spouting off about the stock market emphasizes the perils of forecasting, not the stock market.

[VMI77]

The stock market isn't the issue, the issue is debt. <snip> ... There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

The #1 problem in this country is the entitlement culture.

You went and changed horses on me... A bit unfair...

I'll agree with you 100% that the culture of entitlement will be our downfall. Our Founding Fathers predicted it.

http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogs ... thers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

http://aolanswers.com/questions/foundin ... 8172757412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not really a horse change....just saying that the entitlement culture makes addressing the debt politically impossible --which is exactly the goal of the Democrats and others who helped create it. Ultimately the problem isn't responsive to available measures because the social change that created it took decades, and will take decades we don't have to reverse (or a collapse may force it to come sooner). I don't think we're really in disagreement, I'm just long past believing anything that comes out of the mouth of any politician.