I may have got a friend to start doubting Rush

[Catholic Sensation]

During my latest meeting of Campus Crusade for Christ my buddy and I were talking, and I said that if Bush had even 1/10 the intelligence Bill Clinton had, he would realize that if he wanted to help the economy by cutting taxes, he'd cut into payroll taxes of the middle and lower class. My friend made some kind of comment that was not all that pertinent, but here it is: "Rush Limbaugh said that after Clinton got re-elected and we were acheiving surpluses, Bill Clinton still raised taxes on the upper class, a republican would never do that." Now for any kind of budget to be instituted it needs to be approved by the Congress... so I said "well if that happened, and I don't remember it happening, who has control over whether a budget proposal is enacted?" He said, correctly, "Congress." "Okay, which political party was in control of congress during Clinton's entire second term?" "The repub- hmmm... okay Rush may have made a mistake..." "No, he was intentionally misleading his listeners, but at least you aren't like the other idioto-heads who don't realize they're being lied to."

[hadrons]

1. He didn't realize it because you pointed it out to him ...

you may also want to get some info on Rush's flip-flop on Arnold in Calf. to show your friend the true Rush Shithead

[bfusco]

2. keep working at it

You are exactly right. The Republican Party was the majority in Congress after 1995 and Clinton was re-elected in 1996. No tax cuts were passed on the wealthy after 1993. The tax cuts were inacted in 1993, in the face of larger then protected federal deficiets and what would be higher interest rates if the national debt was not reduced. Under the direction of Rubin, Clinton abandoned many of his domestic innitiatives to making deficiet reduction a priority. The tax increases were succesful in that the debt began to decrease, interest rates remained low, federal revenues increased and surpluses materalized. You could also point out that every single Republican in the House and Senate opposed the tax increases and deficiet reduction in 1993 and that was one of the issues that the Republicans used to win control of congress. Rush is a total blow hard asshole that uses half truths, lies and distortions all spun in a way to support the right wing Republican agenda. He is nothing but a Republican shill. If your friend's eye's are starting to open, you might want to get Al Fanken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" so they can see how FOS he really is.

[Catholic Sensation]

3. I quoted that book to him

often, but he would only laugh. Like when I said that Limbaugh got out of serving in Vietnam because he shit himself a lot.

[snippy]

4. Rush is a liar and shittoheads are complicitly stupid.

After Clinton was re-elected he cut taxes.

Tax cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (during his second term) all produced faster economic growth, more jobs, and higher tax revenues for Washington. Indeed, Clinton's 1997 capital-gains tax cut was the driving force for late-decade budget surpluses. Revenues in this period soared as profits accrued from stock market gains and stock options.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow052003.asp

Of course the tax cuts which passed were not what Clinton proposed. Here is an analysis of the proposed tax cuts.

Citizens for Tax Justice has completed a detailed distributional analysis of the effects of the tax cut plan proposed by President Clinton on June 30, 1997. The analysis finds that the Clinton plan differs sharply from the tax bills recently passed by the House and Senate, with far more of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan going to the middle income ranges, and far less going to the highest income taxpayers.

About 57% of the net Clinton tax cuts would go to families in the middle and fourth income quintiles. This compares to only 18% under the House tax plan and 21% under the Senate plan.

Taxpayers in the bottom 40% of the income scale would receive, on average, no benefit from Clinton's proposed tax cuts. Those in the bottom 20% would pay higher taxes, and those in the second 20% would pay about the same as now. The small income tax cuts in these groups are more than offset by higher excise taxes, primarily on airline tickets and cigarettes. In this regard, the Clinton plan is similar to its congressional counterparts.

The top 5% of taxpayers would receive 13% of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan. In contrast, the House plan offers 56% of its tax cuts to the top 5%, and the Senate plans offers 53%.

Unlike the congressional tax plans, the Clinton plan does not threaten to bust the budget after 2002. The House and Senate tax plans threaten to bust the budget not only in fiscal 2002 but to an ever-increasing extent in later years. Because the Clinton plan lacks the back-loaded, fast-growing provisions of the House and Senate plans and does not rely on optimistic estimates regarding capital gains taxes, the Clinton plan does not share this defect.

http://www.ctj.org/html/clinton2.htm

By the way, in his book(author unknown), Whistle Ass defends Poppy's 1990 tax increases.

In fact, in his campaign autobiography "A Charge To Keep" Bush defends his father's 1990 promise-breaking tax increase on the grounds that "many economists" credit it with today's economic recovery.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500conbush.htm

On edit: Keep up the good work with your friend. Many of Rush's lies are easy to refute but only a few shittoheads are willing to accept the truth.

[radfringe]

5. another thing you may want to mention to ditto heads

Repugs seem to have a lock on "family values"

twist it around and ask if they really "VALUE FAMILES"
talk is cheap, but if repugs really valued families then why are they cutting or eliminating or under funding initiatives/programs that help families? (i.e. head start, "no child left behind", health insurance etc.)