Quantcast

Rush Limbaugh Say Police, Fire-Fighters,Teachers ‘Do Not Grow The Economy’ Do You Agree? (VIDEO)

★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2012/06/13 22:51:18
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/13/rush-limba...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • P. Sturm 2012/06/28 07:31:54
    No
    P. Sturm
    +1
    Nope. Next time an arsonist hits that ignorant fat f**ks house, remember guys, don't put it out, and don't investigate it. You're not not part of the economy.
  • Joel Buccellato 2012/06/24 02:06:38
    No
    Joel	 Buccellato
    +1
    I almost instantaneously disagree with any parcel of defecation that protrubes from his mouth. They help it, because when they get paid they buy things, especially teachers when they are required to buy many of their classroom supplies.
  • sick'n'tired PWCM 2012/06/22 01:44:49
    Yes
    sick'n'tired PWCM
    Taxation pays their salaries. Their raise equals more taxes. I would gladly pay more taxes for police, and fire fighters pay but not for teacher's unions and public school community complexes.
  • bob h. 2012/06/15 17:17:48
    No
    bob h.
    +1
    Get rid of the talking heads, and see who sheds a tear. How will the economy survive without morbidly obese, deaf, pill addicts.
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/16 16:16:57
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    Of course then who would pay for all of your entitlements. You would not likely survive since democrats have become dependent on stealing from others that they have forgotten how to be productive members of society.
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 19:16:12
    bob h.
    Ooops. You forget Reagan: bankruptcy. Bush 1: bankruptcy. Bush 2: bankruptcy. SC, NC, AL, LA, KS, OK,GA, TN, KY,AR. UT etc, etc. all red states leeching off the blue states, getting $2 back for every $1 paid in. And now you want to run the ultimate vulture for Pres. How slow are you Cons?
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 20:05:23
    bob h.
    Once again you've proven how clueless you really are.
  • Mikel_mad2002 2012/06/15 12:14:59
    No
    Mikel_mad2002
    +2
    They are still needed
  • poet4justice 2012/06/15 04:31:31
    No
    poet4justice
    +3
    The only thing that rush has been good growing is hell and drug
  • conservyT 2012/06/15 02:08:15
    Yes
    conservyT
    +1
    My husband’s a soldier and we know all to well about the Public Sector.

    Rush got it right, it's a reality that without a Strong Private Sector my husband's job and many other public jobs couldn't survive.
  • Paige 2012/06/15 01:11:19
    No
    Paige
    +2
    The middle class are who spend money. If firefighters, police and teachers have jobs then they spend money, grocery stores, clothes, and gas. The Bush Tax cuts have been in effect for 11 yrs and we are stil waiting for the job creators to create some jobs.
  • ComeOnNow Paige 2012/06/16 16:20:31
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If what you said is true, then why wouldn't companies just hire everyone they could get their hands on because according to you, that would increase their demand enough to make up for their bloated payrolls.


    The tax cuts had unemployment to a record low of 4.5% until the democrats forced banks to do bad loans collapsing the economy. I know democrats have trouble comprehending things like the economy with more than 1 moving part, but you morons can not even begin to explain how businesses having less cash helps them to grow, compete abroad, invest in R&D (aka the future of our economy) or in any way is good for the economy.
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 19:42:02
    bob h.
    Two wars simultaneously, Patriot act, Homeland security, TSA, ICE, all count as employed, producing nothing but debt. Before Bush, people were saving up for new homes; now they're saving up for Japanese cell phones.
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/20 12:49:04 (edited)
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    Under Bush we had 4.5% unemployment until the mortgage market crashed due to the democrats everyone should have a house so let's force bad loans policies. Under Obama even cell phones have to be a government hand out.
  • Lonely girl 2012/06/15 00:02:30
    Yes
    Lonely girl
    +3
    Although hey are very important jobs, they do not help to GROW the economy. They serve more to protect what we already have.
  • lady_c5_loadmaster 2012/06/14 21:06:00
    Yes
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +1
    They are paid for by local and state tax dollars. This is not created income but just a redistribution of money.
  • bob h. lady_c5... 2012/06/15 17:43:31
    bob h.
    That's all Capitalism is. When the US had a 91% Fed Tax Rate, the economy boomed. When the Unions were getting a living wage from industry, the economy boomed. If one man has $55,000,000,000, which a couple do, he'll buy a Rolls Royce or something. But if that money is paid out evenly to workers earning, say $50,000 per year, and they all buy a Chevy, then Chevy sales increase by 1,100,000 units,
  • lady_c5... bob h. 2012/06/15 18:48:56
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +1
    Gee you are starting to sound like Reagan. Which Obama is not. The lower the taxes I have to send to Washington the more spendable money I have to spend in my local community to support our local stores and workers.
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/16 16:14:24
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    Bob, you morons fail to realize that at that exact same time Europe was in shambles and we had no competition around the world. Can you morons even explain how businesses having less capital is good for them. Can you explain how paying people not to work increases productivity for a country particularly when stealing the money from those that would actually use it for productive purposes? Liberalism does not eve make sense.
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/20 19:37:43
    bob h.
    What YOU fail to realize is that Germany is booming right mow by using that exact model. Zero tax on the poor, 45% tax over 250.000 yr, and over 90% unionized work force. Auto workers make about $30 hr. GM is a joke there. They make 2x as many cars as american Co, Socialized medicine, subsidized public trans, hi speed rail Govt mandated paid vacations, etc. What do you see in Disneyland, Universal, Bush Gardens? Germans, Europeans. How many rednecks do you see?
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/21 03:20:47
    ComeOnNow
    So what’s the plan? Back in 1999, when Germany was going through its own self-imposed austerity programme, US economist Paul Krugman wrote a piece with a humorous title called "Why Germany kant kompete", arguing that Germany’s obsession with discipline and sound money would lead it to become a "drag on a more unified Europe".

    Exactly the opposite happened, and 10 years later, when Germany had become the powerhouse of growth, a German economist responded with a bittersweet piece entitled "What Krugman kant komprehend". The funny use of words aside, Germany’s experience of economic growth after a phase of austerity, which was painful and only hesitantly supported by a small majority of the electorate, is an argumentative stumbling bloc for those forces now arguing for a weakening of the agreed austerity programme.

    So why was Germany’s own austerity plan such a success? Apart from following the much-criticised principles of "discipline" and "sound money", which clearly worked, German austerity had one unique element: it was supported by the major opposition parties and implemented and executed by a left-of-centre coalition government of Social Democrats and Greens under Gerhard Schröder.

    In long-winded, tedious and painful discussions, Schröder also managed to obtain trade-uni...







    So what’s the plan? Back in 1999, when Germany was going through its own self-imposed austerity programme, US economist Paul Krugman wrote a piece with a humorous title called "Why Germany kant kompete", arguing that Germany’s obsession with discipline and sound money would lead it to become a "drag on a more unified Europe".

    Exactly the opposite happened, and 10 years later, when Germany had become the powerhouse of growth, a German economist responded with a bittersweet piece entitled "What Krugman kant komprehend". The funny use of words aside, Germany’s experience of economic growth after a phase of austerity, which was painful and only hesitantly supported by a small majority of the electorate, is an argumentative stumbling bloc for those forces now arguing for a weakening of the agreed austerity programme.

    So why was Germany’s own austerity plan such a success? Apart from following the much-criticised principles of "discipline" and "sound money", which clearly worked, German austerity had one unique element: it was supported by the major opposition parties and implemented and executed by a left-of-centre coalition government of Social Democrats and Greens under Gerhard Schröder.

    In long-winded, tedious and painful discussions, Schröder also managed to obtain trade-union support for most of the austerity measures. These measures took years to work their way through the system and bore fruit too late for the Social Democrats to avoid losing the chancellery to Angela Merkel, but the social and political cohesion behind the austerity programme was, without a doubt, a major reason for its eventual success.

    Replicating Germany’s domestic political hegemony is a requirement for the implementation of austerity measures in EU countries.

    Whoever wins the presidential elections in France this weekend will have to deal with the unpleasant realities of the bond markets, the unloved rating agencies and the need to keep the financial system, and the country’s own banks, working.

    France has no alternative but to join forces with the overall EU austerity effort and build a cohesive social and political platform to implement reforms. Tricky in France, this requires the buy-in from powerful unions. That will be tough. Promising the French electorate too much now, though, will come back to haunt the candidate later and rob France of a credible chance to implement much-needed reform.

    When the last socialist president, Francois Mitterrand, took office at the Elysée in 1981, the ratio of French government debt to gross domestic product stood at 22%. Today it is 82%. The Dutch this week showed the way. After the government collapsed over austerity plans, Prime Minister Mark Rutte obtained majority support from all five parties in Parliament, the so-called Kunduz coalition, which allows him to push the programme through. The Socialist party, which opposed the plan, deeply crashed in Dutch opinion polls this week as a consequence. France, take note.
    (more)
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/21 03:21:51
    ComeOnNow
    Germany implemented Welfare and entitlement reform, and the union workers there are far more reasonablle there than here.

    The unions were destroying Germany as they are here. In the 80's and 90's, unions in Germany had a 35-hour work week, high benefits and early retirement, just to name some of the issues. The result was a rising unemployment rate that barely improved even during economic upswings. All of that changed between 2003-05, however, as German companies radically reformed labor relations.

    union rank and file knew that the companies had their backs to the wall; company threats of massive layoffs and outsourcing to Eastern Europe or Asia were not a bluff. So companies worked with their unionized employees to revise both pay and work requirements.

    The union workers wer eon board with this, and the corrupt goon union leaders even tried to sue their own members for workign with Germany's corporations.
    As a result, companies returned to the 40-hour week (42 hours for some companies)—but it is a much more flexible week. Prewo says they now have work-hour “budgets,” which allow companies to determine work hours from, say, 28 to 45 hours, depending on demand. Extra hours were not paid out in cash but put (without overtime) into an account that could be drawn down late...


















    Germany implemented Welfare and entitlement reform, and the union workers there are far more reasonablle there than here.

    The unions were destroying Germany as they are here. In the 80's and 90's, unions in Germany had a 35-hour work week, high benefits and early retirement, just to name some of the issues. The result was a rising unemployment rate that barely improved even during economic upswings. All of that changed between 2003-05, however, as German companies radically reformed labor relations.

    union rank and file knew that the companies had their backs to the wall; company threats of massive layoffs and outsourcing to Eastern Europe or Asia were not a bluff. So companies worked with their unionized employees to revise both pay and work requirements.

    The union workers wer eon board with this, and the corrupt goon union leaders even tried to sue their own members for workign with Germany's corporations.
    As a result, companies returned to the 40-hour week (42 hours for some companies)—but it is a much more flexible week. Prewo says they now have work-hour “budgets,” which allow companies to determine work hours from, say, 28 to 45 hours, depending on demand. Extra hours were not paid out in cash but put (without overtime) into an account that could be drawn down later.

    In return for wage, benefits and work rule concessions, the companies made a binding commitment (for 3 to 5 years) to not reduce the labor force except in extraordinary situations.


    Again, these agreements were private sector initiated and implemented between the companies and their unionized workforces. In France, by contrast, a 35-hour workweek is the law and so very difficult to change.


    One of the buffers in the German economy, which is not used extensively in the U.S., is lower-paid temporary workers. The huge cost of severance pay in the 2001-03 economic downturn that taught companies to swear to never again have 100% permanent and hard-to-dismiss employees.

    In the upswing of 2005-08, many companies used about 30% temporary workers. In the recession, these were the first to go—back to the temp agencies and then in most cases to other jobs, not unemployment. In the 2009-10 upswing, they were the first to be hired again.

    The country promotes vocational training, mostly run by companies rather than the government. This training is for higher trained and more skilled tradesmen and less unskilled to low skilled manufacturing (AKA low skilled part plugger unions). (The same holds for Switzerland, Denmark or other countries with similar programs).”


    HERE THE UNIONS ARE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL

    The Obama administration has also used the economic downturn to reform labor relations, not as Germany did, but rather to expand union membership and power. Most of the jobs “created or saved” from the various stimulus bills have been government jobs (including teachers), which are usually unionized. Plus the president increased benefits (e.g., ObamaCare), making employees more expensive and employers even more nervous about hiring.

    In the U.S. unions are funneling millions of dollars—often through shadowy advocacy organizations that are largely unaccountable to anyone—to support the president’s agenda, and they are demanding payback for that support.
    (more)
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/16 16:21:03
    ComeOnNow
    Bob, you morons fail to realize that at that exact same time Europe was in shambles and we had no competition around the world. Can you morons even explain how businesses having less capital is good for them. Can you explain how paying people not to work increases productivity for a country particularly when stealing the money from those that would actually use it for productive purposes? Liberalism does not even make sense.

    That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If what you said is true, then why wouldn't companies just hire everyone they could get their hands on because according to you, that would increase their demand enough to make up for their bloated payrolls.
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 19:52:19
    bob h.
    Once upon a time, they HAD to hire anybody they could just to get a deduction. Now after Bush's 5, count them 5, tax breaks and countless subsidies, they don't have to create jobs in America. They can just do a Romney and manipulate other companies.
  • ComeOnNow bob h. 2012/06/20 12:51:37
    ComeOnNow
    That does not even address anything I said. It does not have a bit of truth to it. It is the democrats horrible anti business policies that chase jobs out of the country. No jobs have left more than union jobs.
  • bob h. ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 20:07:47
    bob h.
    Stuttering in paragraphs, amazing. Can you juggle too?
  • morris44 2012/06/14 20:17:18
    No
    morris44
    +2
    These people are consumers and consumers are what grow an economy.

    Suppliers only support the growth in demand.
  • ComeOnNow morris44 2012/06/16 16:23:31
    ComeOnNow
    hat is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If what you said is true, then why wouldn't companies just hire everyone they could get their hands on because according to you, that would increase their demand enough to make up for their bloated payrolls.
  • morris44 ComeOnNow 2012/06/18 21:52:46
    morris44
    It's basic economics. Demand comes first. Demand comes from people having jobs. Ford understood it.

    The key is shifting payroll expense away from just those at the top (who don't buy enough and don't drive demand) to those workers in the masses.

    All the productivity gains we saw from teh 70's on, in money, went to upper-level manager salaries while worker's salaries have remained flat with inflation.
  • ComeOnNow morris44 2012/06/20 12:53:14
    ComeOnNow
    There is no real sustainable demand without good jobs. Your stealing from the actual productive economy to give to the unproductive is short sides and ignorant.
  • morris44 ComeOnNow 2012/06/26 20:52:08
    morris44
    I think you must have meant short-sighted, not short sides.

    How do you define "productive" It cannot only mean creating a widget. Much of our economy is service-based, nothing is produced at all. Public jobs provide services just like private sector jobs. And those providing the services use their pay throughout the economy via purchases.

    It is trying to define "productive" and "non productive" as private vs public that is truly short-sighted.
  • ComeOnNow morris44 2012/07/01 18:02:15
    ComeOnNow
    I define productive as a job that increases the total productivity of the country, which those jobs do not. I would also consider many private sector jobs as non productive, however, most are not productive because of the government, like tax accountants. I am also not saying that there is not a need for many of the positions like police and firefighters or that they do not provide us with a needed service, however, their pay does have to be in line with the level of skill required and the service provided. When firefighters go to three fires a month and spend most of their time playing video games and BBQing, and make $90,000+ per year, retire at 50 making about the same for an additional 50 years, and they have to have the newest firehouses, equipment, etc, we have to questions what is reasonable. I am not saying all firemen meet that criteria, but many do, and supporting all of them and trying to justify the abusers in the same category does not do anyone justice. I am not anti union either, but when a HS dropout makes $100,000+ per year, and can't even change a light bulb without three other people, we have to be able to admit that the union is being abusive to our businesses and tax payers.
  • morris44 ComeOnNow 2012/07/02 19:06:18
    morris44
    You have a lot of generalizatons in your post.

    My best friend's husband is captain in a local fire department. While there arent' many fires there are multiple calls every day. Accidents, injuries etc.

    And when there is down time they do a lot of safety training of civilians and other department personnel.

    My little league's board members were all trained on cpr by our local department. And this had immediate benefit as a player lost conciousness at one of our games this year.

    I think your generalizations about union members is exaggerated as well:

    From the bureau of labor statistics:
    Earnings

    In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had
    median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union
    members had median weekly earnings of $729. In addition to coverage by
    a collective bargaining agreement, earnings differences reflect a
    variety of influences, including variations in the distributions of
    union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm
    size, or geographic region. (See table 2.)

    And training is much more than a high-school dropout.

    From Chicago Journeymen Plumbers:
    You must have a diploma to enter the 5-year apprentice program
    To be licensed, one must pass a 2-part test, and have 4 years of experience, Renewal of license requires further ongoing education.
  • aibohphobia 2012/06/14 20:08:46
    No
    aibohphobia
    I guess letting criminals run free, our society be even less educated than it already is, and our houses not being protected from total fire destruction helps the economy then?
  • ComeOnNow aibohph... 2012/06/16 16:25:58
    ComeOnNow
    Nobody said that there is not a certain level that is necessary, you are trying too argue something that is not even on the table. They do not add to the productivity of this nation. Theya re consumption items in a country. All government is. The democrats argument here is like saying that you spending money on car insurance makes you richer so you should spend all your money on car insurance
  • Centrist_Bill 2012/06/14 19:39:10
    No
    Centrist_Bill
    +2
    Dont contribute to the economy?? OK left see how this holds up shall we??
    1. One of the biggest contributers to the economy is HOME SALES. They dont buy HOMES??
    2. In the real world Cops and Teachers TEACH kids so that they can become people that also contribute right??
    3. As for America's favorite DOPE FIEND well could it be he has a bit of resentment for cops because they arrested him and he had to SPEND a ton of money so he could get treatment instead of JAIL like he always professed should be done.
  • ComeOnNow Centris... 2012/06/16 16:23:42
    ComeOnNow
    hat is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If what you said is true, then why wouldn't companies just hire everyone they could get their hands on because according to you, that would increase their demand enough to make up for their bloated payrolls.
  • Centris... ComeOnNow 2012/06/16 19:30:28
    Centrist_Bill
    In keeping with the theme of this site Im not going to teach you high school economics. I suggest you do a bit of studying. Im not a teacher.
  • ComeOnNow Centris... 2012/06/16 20:50:52
    ComeOnNow
    I have a masters in finance and economics and do commercial lending for a living. I can promise I have a far greater grasp on economics than you do.

    KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IS A SHAM AND HAS BEEN DISCREDITED:
     
     
    (1) if it were true companies would make a mad dash to hire as many employees as possible because the increase in revenues would offset the costs. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (2) If this were true countries like Africa that have a lot of people and no evil businesses would be the most successful. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (3) Taking every dime from businesses would make them have more money to invest in R&D;, better able to compete abroad on pricing, able to hire more people, grow and expand. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (4) Before a monetary system it was all business owners. People traded what they made in a barter system. So there was business before workers and without workers, but there are not workers without business.
     
    (5) Has anyone ever been hired by a poor person?
     
    (6) The poor rarely use American services and rarely buy American products. The rich even the Kroenkes and Lauries don't shop at Wal-Mart. it is the upper middle class and wealthy that actually hire, accountants, attorneys, landscapers, hairstylists, interior designers...










    I have a masters in finance and economics and do commercial lending for a living. I can promise I have a far greater grasp on economics than you do.

    KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IS A SHAM AND HAS BEEN DISCREDITED:
     
     
    (1) if it were true companies would make a mad dash to hire as many employees as possible because the increase in revenues would offset the costs. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (2) If this were true countries like Africa that have a lot of people and no evil businesses would be the most successful. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (3) Taking every dime from businesses would make them have more money to invest in R&D;, better able to compete abroad on pricing, able to hire more people, grow and expand. It does not work that way does it?
     
    (4) Before a monetary system it was all business owners. People traded what they made in a barter system. So there was business before workers and without workers, but there are not workers without business.
     
    (5) Has anyone ever been hired by a poor person?
     
    (6) The poor rarely use American services and rarely buy American products. The rich even the Kroenkes and Lauries don't shop at Wal-Mart. it is the upper middle class and wealthy that actually hire, accountants, attorneys, landscapers, hairstylists, interior designers, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, remodelers, etc. Get my drift.
     
    (7) There is not a fixed amount of pie. The rich expand the pie and the wealthy create more wealthy. How many people has Microsoft made rich? How many people has bob street corner hobo made rich.

    (8) The wealthy got their money through productive means and taking it from them to give to the unproductive poor ensures it will not be used for productive means.

    (9) The business owners take ALL the risk and the business and jobs would not have existed without them. You work for their company. When you take the risk you can have your own company as well.
     
    10. Employment is a trailing indicator to profits, profits drive employment, not the other way around

    Trickle down economics and capitalism is the only system that allows the poor to become wealthy just as immigrants that come here with no money and unable to even speak English do every day while democrats sit here and whine about not getting enough handed to them.
    The thing that Democrats hate about capitalism and trickle down economics is it requires work.  The money does not just trickle down. You actually have to work and the more you want the harder you have to work. It is the only system where someone can be born poor and excel to wealth as foreigners come here broke unable to speak English and do every single day while Democrats whine that they are not being given enough.
    (more)
  • Centris... ComeOnNow 2012/06/16 21:13:11
    Centrist_Bill
    In that case I have one question for you?? How is it that in the Golden Age of America aka the 1950's tax rates were MUCH higher and we had great growth as compared to now when we have very little growth?? That is the $64,000 question. One of which Im betting your not going to be able to answer. IMO the so called small business person aka corporations are NOW controlling the lives of nearly all Americans with the BS attitude of My Way or the Highway. Some of us Americans REFUSE to live by their standards and are the future. Lastly I am and people like me are the opposition. We are the REAL small business owners. We keep things simple as it should be.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/21 20:51:07

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals