Recently there has been much talk about talk radio and freedom of speech. While I am 100 percent in favor of free speech, I believe that those who have the privilege of speaking to the masses are charged with a certain responsibility to tell the full truth and, if they disagree with a policy such as the Obama stimulus plan, they must lay out a clear and concise plan they think is better.
Rush Limbaugh says the Obama plan won’t work, but doesn’t explain how his plan (whatever that is) will work. He says the Obama plan will lead to a bigger government. Sure, no one wants a bigger government, but do you really want to put your money into an unregulated financial business that claims it will return those monies to you with interest and then lose it, all the while taking huge salaries and bonuses, squirreling it away in a Swiss bank account to avoid paying taxes on it?
How do you feel about an unregulated food business that sends contaminated food to nursing homes, schools or that “quick stop” where you pick up a midmorning snack that has you stopping along the road looking for a bush to sit behind because your snack gave you diarrhea?
How would you like to drive though Glenwood Canyon knowing that the walls of the canyon have never been inspected for loose rocks? How about if the government never built that road? You could paddle your canoe up the river and then walk to Denver.
Want to hop on an “unregulated” airline? Do you want an unregulated oil industry, free to pollute your drinking water? If it doesn’t kill you, who cares if your own children die?
If these things appeal to you, then by all means vote for smaller government.
Limbaugh says that the only way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes to corporations, but he never explain how that will work. If “Joe the widget maker” can’t sell his widgets because the general population doesn’t have any money, then how will a tax cut so he can hire more widget makers to make more widgets, help? Even with the best of intentions Joe the widget maker has more widgets that he can sell, so he is most likely to put that “tax cut” in the bank and wait.
Now let’s look at the Obama stimulus plan. We want schools, roads and bridges that we know are safe and well maintained, so let’s put out a contract to repair or build a school, highway or bridge. The contractor gets the bid, he hires an engineering firm to draw up the plans, workers to operate equipment, pour and finish concrete, buys steel reinforcement bars, concrete, asphalt, new equipment, trucks, the list is endless. Payroll begins almost immediately and affects many businesses. Employees of the contractor and all of the affected business get paychecks to spend. They can even buy Joe’s widgets. Doesn’t this sound like a better plan to stimulate the economy? The orporation that didn’t get a tax cut, still got the business and still makes over $250,000 profit. Who loses?
I implore people to think, look beyond the rhetoric, beyond the catch phrases. If you live in a small, isolated village and you buy some food from the local farmer and it doesn’t meet your standards, then you will not return to that farmer or you will demand recourse. If that same farmer sends his product to a processor who, in turn, sends it on to many other food manufacturers (think peanuts) and that food is sold all over the country and it is bad, many people are sick, some die, do you still think smaller government is the answer?
Rush Limbaugh helped George W. Bush get elected for both terms, but he blames Bill Clinton for all the problems this country has and expects President Obama to fix them all in less than 60 days. Let’s get real.
I wish we had a local forum where those of us interested in the welfare of the country could get together, physically or cyberly (is that a word?) and discuss these issues.
STEVE WACKER
Grand Junction

Posted 8 months, 15 days ago in 












3 Responses to “We need to look beyond the rhetoric”
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 1:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The thing to remember about Rush Limbaugh, as well as others like him, is that they really have no positive counter-proposals to anything others propose. They are what we can call the “No! babies” in society. They are found in any group of any size. Everything proposed by others HAS to be wrong yet, never will they accept any type of responsibility to do things. They view their roles in life as “knocking everyone and everyone else down, usually down to their base level. They are nothing but the “chronic whiners” in groups. Strangely enough, perhaps not that strange perhaps, when something the group does is succesful, they are always “first at the trough” to grab the benefits and the credit.
Anyone who has ever headed any group of any size knows that from experience.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Wacker and RLaitres should be banned from posting here and expressing their opinion. Did I get your attenition? I hope so. I made that statement in sarcasm to prove a point. I hope both of you still have the right to post here regardless of your views. Discourse and argumentm, wiuth critical thinking has made this country great. So I hope the “whiners” keep going full steam ahead. Right wrong or indifferent Limbaugh and the likes have a right to do what they want. Take away their right to speak in the form of talk radio or any other medium, then you might as well take away your own right to free speech. I will take a chronic whiner anyday if it keeps people like you from trying to erode my constitutional rights. Funny RL makes these statements, how hypocritical. I have seen him do nothing on these posts but tear down others points of view and nothing positive to these forums.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 8:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco: “Funny RL makes these statements, how hypocritical. I have seen him do nothing on these posts but tear down others points of view and nothing positive to these forums.”
What publiusco considers “tearing down” is most frequently nothing but questioning, not only of statements made, but of the underlying assumptions and values upon which they appear to be based. That is what “critical thinking and analysis mean.” Now, if individuals cannot “justify” their beliefs, that is a personal problem, and one which nobody else is responsible for. If an individual does not know why he believes something, does not know where it came from, or has not accepted it prior to accepting it, that may be a clear indication that he/she should not believe it. Neither the intensity nor the popularity of a belief, is any indication of truth, much as some would believe it is.
If an individual such as Rush Limbaugh wishes to speak, and if others want to listen to him, that is their choice. But, as some of us happen to believe, those who choose to speak also have a responsibility. That is to give some thought as to what they are saying, and ask themselves if they are speaking responsibly. That applies to everyone. There is also another truth that we believe in. The “right to speak” does not mean that the one who chooses to do so also has a “right” to be free of either challenge or criticism. If they are not prepared to accept both, they have another choice. That is to remain silent.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.