Does Anyone Take Rush Limbaugh Seriously?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain_America
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
Economics is not the Church’s mission; human beings are.

As such, the Church has at least two conflicting imperatives to maintain: the right of human beings to life, which implies at least a basic wherewithal to live life; and the rights of persons to hold property and to just compensation.

The socialistic version of Euroeconomics emphasizes the first at the expense of the second; laissez-faire capitalism protects the second at the expense of the first.

Therefore, an effort to do both will not resemble either all the way, and will not satisfy an adherent to either side.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
GEddie, that’s a well stated summary of what millions of well intentioned, middle-ground people see as reality.

Question: How can that summary stand as valid (i.e., be considered reality) when, as Rush and the Magisterium and other millions of people know beyond any doubt, that laissez-faire capitalism simply does not exist?

In America, for example, Capitalism is watered down by thousands of Federal, state and local laws, regulations and agency decisions, the latest of which are Obamacare and the soon to be published EPA regulations that will greatly further debilitate our economy.​

CAT, do you think your husband would care to give us his take regarding the above question? I ask this sincerely, without any hidden agenda. How would he phrase the summary to reflect current reality of American Capitalism?

Thanks, CAT.
 
KSU said:
GEddie, that’s a well stated summary of what millions of well intentioned, middle-ground people see as reality.

Question: How can that summary stand as valid (i.e., be considered reality) when, as Rush and the Magisterium and other millions of people know beyond any doubt, that laissez-faire capitalism simply does not exist?

In America, for example, Capitalism is watered down by thousands of Federal, state and local laws, regulations and agency decisions, the latest of which are Obamacare and the soon to be published EPA regulations that will greatly further debilitate our economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Click to expand...
Of course, everybody understands that laissez-faire capitalism has existed nowhere within living memory.

When those who admire and long for it are numerous and influential, however (consider how many neocons are Ayn-Randians), it is still justifiable to consider laissez-faire one of the two goal lines between which economics is “played.”

ICXC NIKA
 
Captain_America said:
The air’s gone out of his tire for some time now. I find the whole thing repetitive and pointless.

Anyone think there’s a point to the show?
Click to expand...
I think if Rush’s show was loosing air so to speak he would be long gone. The truth is, there are millions of people who listen to Rush. I being one of them. I’m also a Catholic. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I try to live by His word as best I can. Although there have been many attempts to challenge Rush through liberal talk shows they soon closed their doors because they simply can’t hold a candle to Rush’s dedicated audience. I also believe the media, overwhelmingly liberal block stories that will prevent their cause e.g. Ben Ghazi, NSA, IRS etc. Liberal oppression creates a demand for the truth and that is why conservative outlets are so successful.

As a matter of fact, Rush’s popularity is so upsetting to liberal democrats that Nancy Pelosi, a professed Catholic was trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine in 2008. She knew that conservative airwaves needed to be stifled in some way. Thanks be to God, her attempt to oppress our freedom of speech was not successful.

On a side note, I personal feel Nancy Pelosi is not a Catholic. Her belief on abortion is in strict contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Unknowingly, she and other pro-choice catholics have excommunicated themselves from the faith.
 
GEddie said:
Economics is not the Church’s mission; human beings are.

As such, the Church has at least two conflicting imperatives to maintain: the right of human beings to life, which implies at least a basic wherewithal to live life; and the rights of persons to hold property and to just compensation.

The socialistic version of Euroeconomics emphasizes the first at the expense of the second; laissez-faire capitalism protects the second at the expense of the first.

Therefore, an effort to do both will not resemble either all the way, and will not satisfy an adherent to either side.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
KSU said:
CAT, do you think your husband would care to give us his take regarding the above question? I ask this sincerely, without any hidden agenda. How would he phrase the summary to reflect current reality of American Capitalism?

Thanks, CAT.
Click to expand...
Cat’s husband here, since I was invited…

Mainly, I do not agree that the two imperatives are in conflict. The reason GEddie thinks there is a conflict is that he has replaced the imperative, “right to life”, with his own implication, and his idea that only the government can fulfill it. That is only one option.

Remember that the “right to hold property” includes the right to dispose of it as one sees fit, including personal involvement with helping people get the wherewithal to live. When multiple groups are involved in delivering that wherewithal, when they have to justify their work to get and retain donors, then you will see a variety of solutions, some of which may work in certain situations, and others in other situations. When a single federal government bureaucracy does it and forces you to pay for it, you get a single, one-size-fits-all solution based on the then-ruling idealogy of how the world should be. (See Obamacare for a prime example.)

On the “just compensation”, has the Church decided what is just? The current view behind the minimum wage increases say that just compensation is enough to live a lower-middle class life on just that one wage. But not every job needs to be a living wage. Some of those jobs should be able to go to a teenager living at home just getting gas, pocket money, saving up for prom or a car, and work experience.

(Actually, since I have this chance to get the idea out there for people to consider, I’d be really interested in replacing “minimum wage” with “maximum ratio” laws:
Code: 
  highest salary
------------------------------------------ = wage ratio
lowest hourly wage * 2000

where highest salary includes all compensation such as present value of stock options, and lowest wage includes the wages of subcontractors such as the cleaning staff.

Currently I believe that can get to well over 5000. If it were capped at say, 500?, Would executives be content to work for less? Or would they give raises to the botton to keep the high executive pay? Or fire the lowest paid and force the rest to pick up their work?)

In short, I don’t believe the Church’s imperatives are in conflict, and similar free-market approaches recognizing personal freedom and responsibility can work for both. (I can accept some regulation of a free market, but give someone a little power, they’ll just want more…)

Mr. Cat
 
Please allow me to add to what Mr. Cat has written.

Two rights:
  1. the right of human beings to life, which implies at least a basic wherewithal to live life
  2. the rights of persons to hold property and to just compensation.
As Mr. Cat said, the Church does not specify the GOVERNMENT must distribute the property and just compensation. Many of us believe that the citizens, not the government, should be responsible for making sure that the needy have an opportunity to own property and receive just compensation.

So we want SMALL government when it comes to charity (Right #2, above).

But when it comes to the right to life, we also want small government. At this time, the United States federal government does NOT guarantee the right to life for all human beings. **Before anything else, this must first be righted. A government that deliberately chooses to deny the right to life to the unborn is not fit to re-distribute property and wealth. **

But once the government makes “right to life” the law of the land in the U.S., the government must once again stay small. A government that takes on the decisions about who shall live and who shall die is a dangerous government. We can all think of examples throughout human history when governments took the “right to life” into their own hands. Our own tragic history is an example–over 40 million people have been killed with the full legal support of our U.S. government since 1972.

It is in the best interests of all that government must stay small, and allow the people to LIVE and allow the people to GIVE. That’s what freedom is.
 
Mr. Cat,
That the two imperatives ( the right of human beings to life, which implies at least a basic wherewithal to live life; and the rights of persons to hold property and to just compensation.) are not necessarily in conflict, is my thought as well. And I, too, see an effectively free market as not necessarily in conflict with any Church imperative. I think what GEddie meant was that those two imperatives were potentially conflicting, as would happen when the exercise of either or both imperatives were corrupted.

You say: “On the ‘just compensation’, has the Church decided what is just? The current view behind the minimum wage increases say that just compensation is enough to live a lower-middle class life on just that one wage. But not every job needs to be a living wage. Some of those jobs should be able to go to a teenager living at home just getting gas, pocket money, saving up for prom or a car, and work experience.”

That is exactly my position as well. Far more importantly, it fits within Church teaching as expressed in the Compendium Of The Social Doctrine Of The Church. Only those who corrupt, disagree with or don’t know that Doctrine would disagree.

As to your “maximum ratio” law, it’s a great idea, provided you or I were Emperor of America. How long do you think it would take the current emperor to push for a ratio of 1?

Early on, my beloved John Paul II had a problem–an almost complete deference to and trust in his Bishops and their reports to him. By the time the horrible truth exploded in the news media, unimaginable damage was done. I pray to God that I am wrong, but it is looking more and more as though Francis also has a problem–a trust that what he says and, now, writes will be reported and received in the same sense as he meant it. I understand full well why Rush was upset.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Mr. Cat. And you, too, Mrs. Cat.
 
Rush was upset by what the Pope said - is that a bad thing? Unless their communications carry anywhere near their same weight in spiritual value, I would imagine not. But then again I might imagine wrong…
 
“…if you have the money, spend it on yourself”, - Rush Limbaugh
I’ve been listening to Rush since 1992. I have never heard him say this. Rush is correct when he says you must listen to him for six weeks before you can understand his show. His comments regarding SUV’s are based on many things, one being that the amount of gas they use would not be an issue if we drilled for oil more here, in our own country. We do not need to be reliant on Arab countries for our oil. At all. People who use electric cars do not realize that the electric they use comes from coal-fired plants. Coal, like oil, as you might know, is frowned upon by the liberal community. Nay-sayers, give it a six-week try. Hold your nose and open your mind.
 
You are correct; it takes a while to catch on and become an insider.

As to whether anyone takes him seriously, you can bet your last dollar that the ENTIRE Left takes him very seriously; far more than anyone else in media.

He speaks from a moral and truthful base, which is why the Left fears and hates him almost as much as they fear and hate the teaching of the Catholic Church, which he admires.

In a constant effort to destroy him, he has become the most calumniated and despised (by the Left) and misunderstood (by many in the middle) personality in America, yet he lets it all roll off his back and jokes about it. That drives his enemies, who also are the enemies of the Church, absolutely wild.

He is the current-day William F. Buckley, Jr., who was famous for his encyclopedic knowledge and for saying things like, ‘‘I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said’’. Limbaugh, however, unlike Buckley, doesn’t speak like a Yale professor and has not yet decided to become Catholic.
 
Rush makes many good points; but he constantly fails or refuses to acknowledge (even before the pope mentioned) unfettered capitalism. He refuses to believe todays capitalism IS unfettered and broken and exists mainly now as Corporatism. Yes Capitalism is the best of the worst systems but he refuses to see it as broken at all.
 
You might want to explain what “unfettered capitalism” is and if/where it exists. I’ve repeatedly had it implied to me recently, that the pope may be mistaken and that such a phenomenon probably is not to be found anywhere in the world. 😉
 
CathModerate said:
Rush makes many good points; but he constantly fails or refuses to acknowledge (even before the pope mentioned) unfettered capitalism. He refuses to believe** todays capitalism IS unfettered and broken **and exists mainly now as Corporatism. Yes Capitalism is the best of the worst systems but he refuses to see it as broken at all.
Click to expand...
It may be broken but trust me it is not unfettered.Unless you think that government regulation doesn’t exist?
 
CathModerate said:
Rush makes many good points; but he constantly fails or refuses to acknowledge (even before the pope mentioned) unfettered capitalism. He refuses to believe todays capitalism IS unfettered and broken and exists mainly now as Corporatism. Yes Capitalism is the best of the worst systems but he refuses to see it as broken at all.
Click to expand...
‘‘I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said’’

Whoa! Bill Buckley must be guiding my hunt and peck finger. The pope never said “unfettered capitalism”. So, do you want to apologize to Rush?🙂
 
If HH never said “unfettered capitalism,” I wonder who did?

We should all want unfettered capitalism. Fetters are metal shackles put on human limbs to disable them. Only an enemy of a country would want its economy deliberately disabled.

Regulation is another matter. The common good requires it, unless you think dead cats in sausage, unrestricted pollution, and robber barons are a good thing.

ICXC NIKA
 
Cat said:
As Mr. Cat said, the Church does not specify the GOVERNMENT must distribute the property and just compensation.
Click to expand...
This is common misconception on the religious right.

“This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.” - Evangelii Gaudium 56

The Church teaches that the state has a duty to promote the common good. Maybe you think individual charity is more effective than government welfare. Empirical evidence stands against you but for those of us who believe individual charity is insufficient, the state must step in.
 
johnmann said:
This is common misconception on the religious right.

“This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.” - Evangelii Gaudium 56

The Church teaches that the state has a duty to promote the common good.
Click to expand...
Yes, none of this is new. What is new is the belief system that seeks to usurp the Church’s teachings, but then again, from a historical perspective, there is nothing new there either…
 
I don’t find pundits enjoyable except the comedians like Jon Stewart. I listen to music in the car. It’s the season for Handel’s Messiah. If I want smart commentary, I listen to The Economist audiobook.

Are they harmful? I don’t know. It seems like they attract those who are already partisan. Maybe they make matters worse. Their secret, whether left-wing or right-wing, is to take a kernel of truth, exclude all context, and massage it to fit into a grand theory of everything. It’s not that different from conspiracy theorists. They actually know their facts. But only one set of select facts to the exclusion of any context that would tend to give a different impression. And listeners don’t realize they’re missing all the context.

If you want smart conservative analysis, you won’t find it on the radio and rarely on TV. Those mediums favor the outrageous over the smart. Read Ross Douthat, First Things (though you should ignore their economic commentary), Megan McArdle (libertarian but conservative-friendly), Public Discourse, etc. The Hoover Institute has some great YouTube interviews with prominent conservatives. The Weekly Standard and National Review are too partisan for me as a whole but I like some of their writers like Reihan Salam.

Maybe it’s because I live in NYC, but I don’t get much out of reading liberal commentary that I don’t get just in my daily life. Or maybe it really is true that the best ideas tend to come from the right. I read some liberals like Matt Yglesias but I wouldn’t consider them essential reading like I would Ross Douthat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top