Rush Limbaugh seems intent on driving a wedge between Bill Clinton and President Obama. This week the portly pundit accused Clinton of 'undercutting' Obama with comments the former president made about taxing the wealthy to fix the economy.
According to the Huffington Post Limbaugh said Obama believes in taxing the wealthy, but Clinton believes that taxing the wealthy alone will not entirely fix the economy.
'We are all going to have to contribute to this,' Clinton said, indicating that he accepted that the well off had a duty to the country, but they should not shoulder the burden alone.
Clinton underlined he was not speaking on behalf of the White House, adding that he personally believed America's middle class would accept returning to the tax rates of the 1990's if they saw that their wages would increase and the economy grow.
Limbaugh saw this as an opportunity to criticize both Democrats, accusing Clinton of calling for tax increases on the middle class.
'Is he doing Obama any favors here?' Limbaugh asked. 'That is the exact opposite message of what Obama wants — is it not?'
Limbaugh, who reportedly makes 40 million dollars a year, said that Obama's suggestion that America's rich should pay their share of taxes amounted to a 'class envy tour.'
Obama's message was not to the multimillionaire's liking and Limbaugh scoffed that the president was 'trying to make everybody believe that the reason we have an economic problem is because we have rich people in the first place.'
But Limbaugh's comments come in the same week that it was revealed Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his US passport to potentially save himself hundreds of million of dollars in taxes. It's a spectacular illustration of Obama's claim that the super rich can find multiple ways to prevent paying their share.
In a back handed compliment Limbaugh concluded that Clinton was right in part. 'You can take everything rich have but you wouldn't balance the budget ever,' he said.
In an effort to put more daylight between the two presidents, Limbuagh added: 'Clinton seems to differ on just about every Obama policy.'
22 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.seanomelbourne | May 24, 2012, 12:02 AM EDT
Relevancy??
BrianO | May 23, 2012, 10:27 PM EDT
Ephraimk brought up ford,you comrades need to coordinate your stories better.
seanomelbourne | May 23, 2012, 06:59 PM EDT
Ford made his billions on the backs of overworked and underpaid employees.
BrianO | May 22, 2012, 11:01 AM EDT
In 1914, Ford, with 13,000 employees, produced about 300,000 cars, that would have left 287,000 cars to sell to other Americans, my guess is that free market forces combined with entrepreneurial improvements allowed Ford to sell a good product at a good price, and make a profit.
BrianO | May 22, 2012, 09:06 AM EDT
so is that raise or lower? (the presidential coupling takes some real political gymnastics) Thank you for the insult/compliment as a parent I tell my children to aspire to be the best, to achieve, and to give back where they feel their contribution will do the best. Maybe I'm wrong. I should tell them to wait, rely on a government agency, allow more controls on your freedoms, and whatever policy the government deems appropriate must be the right thing. Oh and don't worry about results as long as your intentions are good. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", the nine most terrifying words in the English language " RONALD REAGAN.
EphraimKibbey | May 22, 2012, 12:34 AM EDT
BrianO - I agree with Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton who all raised taxes to get out of their recessions. It worked all three times, it brought the country quickly back from the depths but the 1% didn't like it much. I'm glad your such a wealthy guy that you can afford to vote for the 1%. I'm not, I'm just one of the 99% so I will vote my wallet and go with Obama who knows what is needed to get us out of this depression. Hopefully the country will also return both houses to the Dems and the senate will require an old fashioned talking philibuster rather than the salutary one they currently use. We will put back Glass-Stegal with some updates to ban derivitives and break up the 4 biggest banks. We will pass an amendment that corporations are not people and only people are endowed with inalienable rights. We will pass a voter's rights law banning the voter restrictions being put in place by GOP statehouses. We will pass an amendment to ban descrimination of any type based on sexual orientation. All Mittens wants to do is take us back to W's failed world. We ALL see where those policies took us. America may pause occasionly but FORWARD is her traditional path!
BrianO | May 21, 2012, 06:39 PM EDT
Ephraim take a breath, in a recession is it better to cut taxes or increase them?
EphraimKibbey | May 21, 2012, 04:14 PM EDT
BrianO - However, during the Clinton administration, many PRIVATE sector jobs were CREATED by the government when tax breaks were given to businesses on the condition that they hire additional American employees and welfare recipients were given training for those jobs. During that time, our economy got hotter and hotter as the tax base expanded at his higher tax rates. Governments across the nation found themselves flush with cash and the Federal Government began paying off our debt. Then W took over. His administration started giving the same tax breaks for job creation outside the US where there was no minimum wage and the tax base began to contract. Business began outsourcing. At the same time his tax rate reductions reduced the amount each taxpayer was contributing resulting in a double wammy to our revenues. State and local taxes took a real hit. During the three years under President Obama, the private sector has added more AMERICAN jobs than during the eight years under W. Imagine how hot the economy woud get if we returned to Clinton era taxes and regulations! Keynes works well until you stop following his rules.
BrianO | May 21, 2012, 11:18 AM EDT
Hi Ephraim sorry for the delay as life takes time. The problem with Keynes is his model confiscates the publics money to target cetain sectors with the hope of jump starting the economy with a Temporary stimulus. The temporary stimulus does have an effect but not a lasting one. When the Clinton administration funded a temporary initiative to add 100,000 police it did give many new policemen jobs in the short run, however when the funding ran out the states and local governments couldn't afford to continue the program and these officers were laid off, which then put them on unemployment. The only long lasting effect of this program was the debt incurred to fund it. So if your goal is to increase deficit spending as an excuse to raise taxes and gain further control over free people, then by all means follow keynse
seanomelb | May 19, 2012, 07:39 PM EDT
Murph Four more years and we will see who will be jealous then. EK your a mental giant when compared to Briano,not sure if that's a compliment!!
EphraimKibbey | May 19, 2012, 12:13 AM EDT
@BrianO - If you look at history and see the effect on our economy of raising and lowering taxes you see that John Maynard Keynes had it right way back in 1933. When the US follows his advise, we prosper and when we don't, well just look at what continuing the Bush tax cuts has wrought. Only consumers are job creators. No employer will hire new workers unless he has the consumers to buy more of his products than he can make with his current staff. Do you really think that capitalists are so stupid. They do not get rich by throwing their money away. Henry Ford made his Model T cheap enough that his workers could afford them thus increasing the number of consumers and making himself even richer. Trickle-down is a trap not only for the US economy but for corporations as well because as the consumers disappear so will the corporations and their stockholders. I'm glad that I amused you. Laughter is often the response of one who knows that they are wrong when they hear the truth spoken. I will keep on telling the truth about the numbers so prepare yourself for lots of laughing.
BrianO | May 18, 2012, 11:25 PM EDT
Oh and I enjoyed the laugh, "keynesian sanity" whats next? a marx brothers movie?
BrianO | May 18, 2012, 09:03 PM EDT
EK, which theory is your brand of economics?
Murph46 | May 18, 2012, 08:22 PM EDT
Seanie is jealous!
seanomelb | May 18, 2012, 06:49 PM EDT
Limbaugh makes 40 million because he captured the brainless evangelical Christian market by pandering to their ignorance and stupidity.
Murph46 | May 18, 2012, 04:08 PM EDT
PhlutiePhan,we need you in politics! I'll be your campaign manager!Right On!
Bythebay | May 18, 2012, 04:06 PM EDT
Rush must need more media attention!
Nicomax | May 18, 2012, 12:44 PM EDT
The rich are not paying the anticipated rates which have been part of our progressive income tax structure since 1913. Matter of fact, tax revenues are at 60-year lows due both to many people without any income, and the lowest rates in decades on those at the very top of the income scale.
EphraimKibbey | May 18, 2012, 12:36 PM EDT
Try as he might, Rushie can't fit between President Obama and President Clinton. Down with Voodoo economics and up with Keynesian sanity. All please note that there is a vast difference between the later and either socialism or communism. All three are actual economic theories with actual rules and actual pros and cons. On the other hand, supply-side economics is just a LIE invented to make the rich feel better about sucking the life out of the country and convince the rest of us to let them do it. Look at the historical record of US taxation v. GNP, jobs, income, the Dow, etc. to discover the lie of trickle-down. Are you feeling any drips yet?
BrianO | May 18, 2012, 12:07 PM EDT
Poorly written article seems to be pieces of three articles sewn together in order to take a swipe at the portly pundit who makes(as in earns)40 million dollars a year.
NYCFiredog | May 18, 2012, 10:40 AM EDT
Assuming the rich are NOT paying "their fair share" and making that accusation IS the very definition of class envy and the foundation of any Communist / Socialist ideology. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods OR money". Or forcing your neighbor to pay for your contraceptives etc IS Obama AND Clinton. But why not divide and conquer. Obama and the Clintons can't stand each other. Let's have some fun with it. And PhlutiePhN---_You're spot on with your comments. Our Bishops are Socialists with fancy hats. Those who lived under communism recognize Liberation Theology (communistic Catholicism) for what it is.
TheOldPerfessor | May 18, 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
Obama must be all choked up having a friend like Rush.