It is my plan to comment on some of the opinions of Rush Limbaugh in his books and radio programs.  I find it impossible to listen to him every day as he tends to turn my stomach, so I will just wander around and comment on what I happen upon.

>

I will start with Jack's (that's me) personal definitions that may help to clarify some of what I say.

Liberal:

 Liberals are individuals from the left side of the isle who range from socialists to middle of the roaders; just like conservatives who range from fascists to middle of the roaders also.  My personal political view is that government exists for the promotion of the general welfare.  After protecting the physical welfare through police powers and defense, the major job of government is to prevent individuals and groups from exploiting others.  The antitrust laws that attempt to prevent strong companies from exploiting smaller ones, and the minimum wage that attempts to prevent the employer exploiting those who, out of necessity, will work for a wage below what can obtain the minimum dignified survival are examples.  It is also the responsibility of government to see that everyone can live a decent life in spite of their handicaps due to their physical health, their cultural background, or their native talent. Many conservatives like Mr. Limbaugh appear to feel it is up to everyone to secure their own well being just "like I did".  In this liberal's opinion there is no justification to a system in which some members of the society have tens of billions of dollars while a significant number live in poverty.  In a recent article I read that the US is 23rd in the world ranking in life expectancy.  While the American rich have the best health care in the world, the bottom of the rung has care similar to that of Subsahara Africa. Mr. Limbaugh complains about the liberals wanting income redistribution.  No!  Liberals believe that slums equal to the worst in the world should not exist in a country where other people can afford $250,000,000 for a toy boat.  Of course we should rely on charitable giving to solve these problems.  Conservatives cite examples of increased giving.  Remember that includes gifts to Ivy League Colleges that barely need it along with food banks.  True charity falls way short of what is needed.

Conservatives, like Mr. Limbaugh, refer to tax and spend liberals.  This is a political weapon, not a fact.  The fact is that most liberals believe that government should use it funds to solve the problems of the country, not to serve the desires of the biggest contributors.

The forgoing does not mean that I am against business.  In some ways Coolidge was right when he said that the business of the country is business.  If those with the drive to form business are not successful, the working individual does not work.  Most of the important advances of the human condition were produced by driven individuals in business, science, and government.  The successful society will encourage the driven, while it protects the rest from exploitation.

I do not believe that government usually is efficient at doing things.  Bureaucracy never seems to work.   Public employees have been able to lobby for job security to the extent that they are not needed to be efficient.  Drive by any highway repair project and count the number of workers and the number of watchers.  Wherever possible, work should be contracted to competitive bidders under practical oversight.  This does not always work well as President Eisenhauer warned about the military-indurstial complex.  How many generals go to work for the defense industry after retirement.  Is this because of their great business expertise, no it is because of their contacts.  Also, I am certain that the bidding preparation process is to estimate the cost, and subtract the largest cost over run that they can get away with.  Check almost any project.

The people of this country have just three choices, seeing that charity will not solve all the problems.  We have to have welfare, prisons, or work.  Which is the cheapest and best for the general welfare.  There will always be haves and have nots because of talent and drive.  I would prefer " have enoughs".

To learn more about my views read my UTOPIA REVISITED.:

Conservative

JAB: (see definition later):  Those who believe that the best society can be obtained if we control the crooks and maximize the defense, then let everyone do what they please with the least interference by government and the lowest taxes.  In other words, I got mine, and you will be well off if you get yours.

LB (see definition later):  We must perceive and sell ourselves:

Not as the party that opposes government, but that which champions individual freedoms!;
Not as the party that opposes higher taxes, but that which champions entrepreneur ship!;
Not as the party that opposes abortion, but that which champions every form of human life as the most sacred of God's creations!;
Not as the party that opposes the expansion of the welfare state, but that which champions rugged individualism!;
Not as the party that hates sinners, but as the party that denounces immorality but forgives indiscretions!;
Not as a party that is mean spirited, but the party that truly cares about people and their self worth.
(SEE I TOLD YOU SO {SITYS}   p 387)

Limbababble(LB): He often uses the term psycobabble, so.  Such as the chapter in SITYS: Eight Years of Reagon: The eighties was not a decade of greed.  There will be many, many more as shown by the title of this thing.

Jackbabble(JB): This stuff I am writing.

Rushspeak(RS):  In his writing he frequently uses derogative words to denigrate those of different political views.
    Ron (red) Dellums {SITYS p26} - this is an example of his politics of ridicule.  Mr. Dellums was the congressman from Oakland CA that represented a district with a majority of African Americans.  He actually voted for the interests of his constituents unlike most politicians who vote for the interests of the highest bidder.
    Alan (the Cadaver) Cranston {SITYS p179}   - Alan Cranston was a leader of the Democratic senate.  He was thin probably because he was in constant training for the senior olympics in which he was a successful sprinter.  This from blubber butt (JS) who probably can't run more that ten feet.  Maybe he could roll there.

Jackspeak(JS):  My clumsy attempt to be rush like:  such as Rush (Adolph) Limbaugh.

Politics of ridicule(PR):  This is a form of RS in which R tries to make a political rival look ridiculous with words.  He does not argue with a political position, but rather tries to denigrate the individual, much like children do when they call their fellows who have bad eyes foureyes, or worse, the retarded dummy.  This type of cruelty caters to the type of person who laughs at the unfortunate in order to feel superior to someone.  R plays to the people who do not have a feeling of self worth and are are attracted to language that belittles others.  Anything that puts the other down so that they can feel superior.  Examples: Algore, Reichsss, Slick Willie.  Others can do it too: Blubberbutt(JS)

DISCLAIMER:

Strange as it may seem, I often agree with R.  Welfare failed, not because there was no need, but for many of the disincentives that Limbaugh cites.  The WPA and CCC of Roosevelt's presidency was a good beginning.  That was the welfare to work that was rediscovered in the 90's.  No political opinion is always wrong, even R.  R is right when he insists that self reliance is an important characteristic.  All I want is for R to tell us how those who don't have that important characteristic can obtain it.  I can assure R that just telling people they need self reliance is not sufficient.  Nearly 50 years ago I heard a leading criminologist say that those who steal hub caps from Cadillacs consider that an act of war.  In all that time, that has not improved in spite of the building of more POW camps. This was supposed to be a disclaimer, not a sermon, sorry.

FROM HERE CLICK OF THE VARIOUS RUSHIMS THAT I WILL TALK ABOUT