|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/7/2008 11:15:02 AM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1792
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JustaChristian
quote:
As far as how he spends his money, it does keep the economy moving. He spends money, those people then spend money and on and on it goes. That is what makes the world go round for the most part.
Prostitution, illegal drugs, pornography, laundered funds, abortion income....
Making and spending money is not in itself "healthy and good for the economy". There is no such thing as a "free market", nor is there likely many a Christian who, truly analysing what a true "Free Market" represents, would want a totally open free market and all that would really entail. It is a nice "buzz concept" and good to banter around for politicians
We don't like to admit it, but we all participate and empower government to control markets, and that is a good thing. Wise societies wisely control it.
So, back to what was said a few posts back, it is entirely consistant with Moral and economic principles to pay attention to where money goes and how society accepts and encourages or discourages its uses.
I personally don't care if someone is paid hundreds of millions of dollars. That isn't my business. How someone spends their money is their business. If it's legal fine and if it's not legal there are consequences in place to deal with it. The older I get the more libertarian I get. The least amount of government needed to function the better it is for all of us. JMO of course.
_____________________________
Stephanie
Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God. To a people caught in the tempest God says, `Be still, and know that I am God.' ~AW Tozer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/7/2008 11:37:55 AM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1069
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: Buffalo Trading Post
Status: offline
|
I'm not a really avid Rush listener, but do occasionally tune in, and I applaud his big payday. Good for him. There is, or at least ought to be, no such thing in private enterprise, barring illegalities, as being overpaid.
_____________________________
Lutefisk--The Piece Of Cod That Passeth All Understanding
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/7/2008 1:45:28 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5015
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter
I'm not a really avid Rush listener, but do occasionally tune in, and I applaud his big payday. Good for him. There is, or at least ought to be, no such thing in private enterprise, barring illegalities, as being overpaid.
Excellent point.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 4:51:52 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you have never thought that a person has been overpaid?
People get waht they get. If they are overpaid then that will be evident sooner or later. I do not automatically hate someone because they make a lot of money. That...is communist.
quote:
Some government official that contributes to the bloat of government perhaps?
Government officials are not part of capitalism. They earn by not producing.
quote:
One person did say they will try not to support anyone who makes multi millions of dollars (uh, good luck with that) but that person was not the one labeled a communist.
An accurate definition. If you read my post I addressed this....
quote:
If Rush's morality is the problem then there might be a point there but its not.
quote:
I just don't see how labeling someone based on one comment and their negative feelings about one highly controversial figure does anyone any good. It lowers the public discourse, increases resentment and decreases productive conversation.
I had qualifiers in my previous post such as the one above. I did not paint with a broad brush...you only read what you wanted to read from my post. Let me restate.
If someone argues that another makes too much money just because its a lot of money, they are a communist. If it can be shown Rush does not earn his wage then there could be an arguement against his wages. However that is not the case and the only arguements against his wages are covetness or ideology.
If you don't like Rush's opinions, how does that have any bearing on the topic of this thread? Rush's pay. Same way with Stern. I don't like the content of his show but he makes money for his employer..so he gets that wage and I don't have a problem with him making that money
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 9:24:49 AM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
If someone argues that another makes too much money just because its a lot of money, they are a communist.
Very good defense of your point but this quote above is where we differ. The someone that was labeled a communist never said that best I can tell. They called Rush an overpaid buffoon, called him a prostitute and a fascist (or his listeners fascists, I really couldn't tell) and accused him of spending his money in immoral ways. All personal attacks of which I deplore BTW (works both ways). So all these insults tell me that this person hates Rush and can't comprehend how he would be worth that much, not that (s)he resents his huge salary just because its a huge salary. Maybe that means this person doesn't really understand the radio business and is conflating personal feelings with business sense (i.e. not being objective) but the charge of communist doesn't stick in my mind.
I'll go to another example: I think Julio Lugo, shortstop of the Boston Red Sox, is overpaid at 9 million a year (and check the Boston Globe sports forums, I am not alone, do we have a cell of communists in Red Sox nation). Lugo makes a few great plays but many errors in the field and is at best an average hitter. He has not achieved a popularity that far exceeds his talent as a player. So in my eyes, he does not make the Red Sox better as a team (which common sense would say sells more tickets) and the Red Sox do not sell more tickets due to fans wanting to see Lugo play (as opposed to Ramirez, Ortiz, Beckett, Dice-K, Lowell, Pedroia, Ellsbury). So I believe they could get better value by having a minor leaguer play the position. But I don't resent him making that money, good for him. He isn't really hurting anything (since the Sox bleed green and there is no salary cap in baseball) other than the Sox record (and he's probably better than a random free agent shortstop). Maybe I'm missing something, maybe there is a huge group of Lugoheads who buy tickets just to see their leader play and snap up tons of Sox merchandise with Lugo's name on it. That would mean I was wrong on my assessment of Lugo and his salary, not a communist nor one who covets Lugo's cash (as I'll clearly admit I cannot place shortstop as well as he can)  .
As an aside, I read a very interesting book written in the mid 90s called "Lords of the Realm" by John ???. He was the Wall Street Journal's sports writer. He maintained that most baseball players were overpaid, that they did not make enough money for their employers to justify their salaries. He outlines several reasons why, chief among them the owner's desire to be popular in their hometowns outpaced their desire to make money on their team (they had other business ventures that made money, allowing them to play a form of real life fantasy baseball). I believe he made a great argument but he could be wrong but I don't think any WSJ writers are communists.
The point of all this is to show that someone can believe someone to be overpaid, rightly or wrongly, and not be a communist or want their stuff. Our poster just cannot see how someone so hateful can be worth so much money. I can see past my personal feelings (usually, no one's perfect) and consider all the people who do agree with him, making him worth the money. In my reading of this person's posts I saw that (s)he did not make that distinction. That means they misjudged Rush's worth not that they are a communist.
quote:
If you don't like Rush's opinions, how does that have any bearing on the topic of this thread?
In a perfect world where everyone stays on topic it does not but Rush excites extreme feelings in people positive and negative and they can't separate that from the subject at hand.
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 9:35:26 AM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
Just a couple of addendums:
quote:
People get waht they get. If they are overpaid then that will be evident sooner or later. I do not automatically hate someone because they make a lot of money. That...is communist.
You can intellectually think to yourself "I think that person is overpaid" without hating the person (see my Lugo example). Conversely, you can think someone is overpaid because you hate them (that would be the poster we are discussing IMHO).
In essence you're saying the person hates Rush because he is overpaid. I think they feel he is overpaid because (s)he hates him. I think that person hated him before they knew what his salary was.
quote:
If it can be shown Rush does not earn his wage then there could be an arguement against his wages.
Some people think no one is worth 400 million. My grandfather being chief among them. As he is a World War II vet (and very proud of it) as well as other reasons I can tell you he is not a communist, simply someone out of touch with modern finance.
quote:
Government officials are not part of capitalism. They earn by not producing.
Just one example: without government officials how would we get roads built that transport needed goods from where they are made to where they are sold? While I would tend to agree that there are too many government officials they still produce or more accurately create conditions where production can take place (ideally). It is a little too simplistic to say they don't produce just because they don't make an actual product or perform a service directly for a consumer.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 7/8/2008 9:43:10 AM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 9:07:11 PM
|
|
|
loloidong
Posts: 60
Joined: 7/8/2008
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
|
In my opinion Rush is a rock star so he can get rock star deals. He can probably do a lot of good with the remainder of his money (after 35% tax) than if we give them all to the government.
His purchases will be good for the economy. His properties might need management so that will provide jobs. His money might be invested on business which will also create jobs and help the economy. I am pretty sure that the money will not be horded away under the ground or under the mattress. I believe that he is also a charitable person so if we are worried about the poor, we have someone who can help some more.
As far as deserving it, that is a matter of opinion. But I think it is a deal that Clear Channels sees as profitable on their side. Otherwise the deal might not have been forged. And it may have been part of the profit that he brought them. Who knows. If he bring earnings to his employers that means jobs are kept and it is good for the economy as well.
He has all the rights to his money and no amount of punditry will reverse this (unless he renegs on his contract). So let us celebrate individual achievements whether they be writers, athletes, businessmen or charities. Whether they are rewarded with money, crowns, thropies or a mere shakehand let us be happy and let us not drag them down to a level that we want them to be because we think they way above our own standards.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 9:26:51 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1991
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
What disturbs me most about Limbaugh, however, is how so many of his listeners take everything he says as political gospel without question.
Mindless conservatism is as dangerous as mindless liberalism and that's why Rush and his ilk cannot stand moderates. He wants sheep! If your not his sheep your a pinko, communist, socialist, feminazi, liberal, (insert other ad homminem attack here).
quote:
He is a true profit a God, bringing fourth the truth and puttin the liburuls, commies, athiests, and tree huggers in they're place. Along with other grate Amercans like Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hanity Rush helps keep up informed so we can push by the tide a evil that id threttening to destroy are grate nation.
Is this an example of what you were speaking about todd?
I guess spell and grammar check is out of the question! Or is this proof of the failure of our public schools Rush is always talking about!
< Message edited by mapachito13 -- 7/8/2008 9:34:44 PM >
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 11:03:43 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3744
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
Just one example: without government officials how would we get roads built that transport needed goods from where they are made to where they are sold?
Other than taking personal property from folks why does it take the government to build a road?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 11:19:27 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Is this an example of what you were speaking about todd?
I guess spell and grammar check is out of the question! Or is this proof of the failure of our public schools Rush is always talking about!
I thought that when I first read it through also. Then I realized its satire and it is extremely clever at that. Serious. I won't get into all of it but let me give you an example or two:
quote:
He is a true profit a God
Note the misspelt word profit (instead of prophet) and he uses a instead of (well) of. He is saying that Rush's true motive is to make money, meaning his 'god" is profit.
quote:
that id threttening to destroy are grate nation.
id instead of is. The id is that part of us that wants, wants, wants. It is balanced by the superego (conscience) and ego (the self attempting to balance the wants of the id with the reservations of the superego). Thats probably oversimplyfying Freud but its close enough to explain the symbolism. That our wants and our lack of restraint in pursuing those wants are destroying our "grate" nation. "Grate" (as opposed to great) is short for ingrate, the poster is saying that we are ingrates for taking our freedom for granted by ridiculing those we disagree with.
I also think the whole thing is a stab at Conservatives for being unintelligent.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I agree with his point but I would bet the farm (if I had one) that it is satire and that my interpretations are close.
I didn't mention it earlier because I thought we were supposed to ignore him*.
* Not positive if the poster is a him or a her but judging from the screen name at least the "character" is male, thus I use him.
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 11:27:57 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Other than taking personal property from folks why does it take the government to build a road?
Who determines where the road is built or who (what company) gets the contract to build it? Why would a company build a road if no one were to pay them for it? Would the local citizenry be able to make an agreement among themselves to pay for it? How would a company make money on a road they built (assuming they are not being paid to build the road)? Would they just set up toll booths wherever they wanted? What if I decided to set up a tollbooth on their road? With no government officials who would stop me? It would be chaos if companies just started building roads randomly.
Government officials help our economy in other ways. They enforce copyrights. Who would create movies, music etc. that anyone with a DVD or CD burner could turn around and sell? They ensure that food that is sold is up to a high standard. If anyone could sell any type of food consumer confidence would go way down.
I could think of other examples but I think I've made my point. Our economy is at the very least greatly enhanced by government officials. There very well may be too many of them and too many regulations but you need some sort of central authority to provide and maintain the collectively consumed goods we require for commerce and ensure that there is some sort of order in the playing field.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 7/8/2008 11:44:11 PM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 11:42:06 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 3744
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
Who determines where the road is built or who (what company) gets the contract to build it?
Common sense for starters... A lot of roads were horse trails back in the day...
quote:
Why would a company build a road if no one were to pay them for it?
I'll ask the local pavement company who pave miles of private roads...
quote:
How would a company make money on a road they built?
Would they just set up toll booths wherever they wanted?
The community could pay them and set up toll booths to cover the cost and future repairs...
quote:
What if I decided to set up a tollbooth on their road?
With no government officials who would stop me?
The government not being in the road building racket doesn't mean they no longer are in the business of enforcing the laws...
quote:
It would be chaos if companies just started building roads randomly.
That would be against the concept of making a profit...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/8/2008 11:57:18 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
The community could pay them and set up toll booths to cover the cost and future repairs...
The community would then become a form of government. A different form sure but a form all the same. Who determines how much the toll is? Or where it is built? Or how many of them there are?
quote:
Common sense for starters... A lot of roads were horse trails back in the day...
I think were beyond that point of that being feasible on a broad level. The Interstate system is quite helpful IMHO at transporting people and stuff. I don't think that could be done without some sort of central authority. Certainly not done as well.
quote:
The government not being in the road building racket doesn't mean they no longer are in the business of enforcing the laws...
But enforcement of the laws is what makes road travel safe, thus making roads more useful. If anyone could travel any speed or drive drunk with no reprocussions it would make road travel much less safe for people tring to buy goods and for those attempting to transport goods. And police officers are agents of the government. They may not be the typical government official but they are government officials all the same.
quote:
That would be against the concept of making a profit...
If two companies want to build a road on the same spot, who determines which company gets to do it? If you answer the community where the road is being built then that community becomes a sort of government. Personally I'll take one central authority, as clueless as it may be at times, over thousands of communities with different standards, expectations and levels of competence.
The fact of the matter is most major roads are paid for and maintained by the government. I don't see where privatizing the road building process on a broad level (meaning pretty much leaving the where, when and how to companies and communities) would lead to better road travel for us. Maybe if we went in a different direction at some point in our past I could see it (well really I couldn't but its possible I suppose) but we are here now.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 7/9/2008 12:03:47 AM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 11:27:40 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1991
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
quote:
Is this an example of what you were speaking about todd?
I guess spell and grammar check is out of the question! Or is this proof of the failure of our public schools Rush is always talking about!
I thought that when I first read it through also. Then I realized its satire and it is extremely clever at that. Serious. I won't get into all of it but let me give you an example or two:
quote:
He is a true profit a God
Note the misspelt word profit (instead of prophet) and he uses a instead of (well) of. He is saying that Rush's true motive is to make money, meaning his 'god" is profit.
quote:
that id threttening to destroy are grate nation.
id instead of is. The id is that part of us that wants, wants, wants. It is balanced by the superego (conscience) and ego (the self attempting to balance the wants of the id with the reservations of the superego). Thats probably oversimplyfying Freud but its close enough to explain the symbolism. That our wants and our lack of restraint in pursuing those wants are destroying our "grate" nation. "Grate" (as opposed to great) is short for ingrate, the poster is saying that we are ingrates for taking our freedom for granted by ridiculing those we disagree with.
I also think the whole thing is a stab at Conservatives for being unintelligent.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I agree with his point but I would bet the farm (if I had one) that it is satire and that my interpretations are close.
I didn't mention it earlier because I thought we were supposed to ignore him*.
* Not positive if the poster is a him or a her but judging from the screen name at least the "character" is male, thus I use him.
As an avid student of sarcasm I am embarrassed that I did not pick that up! Thanks Rufas! I have a whole new perspective on that post now!
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 11:34:44 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1991
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
If two companies want to build a road on the same spot, who determines which company gets to do it? If you answer the community where the road is being built then that community becomes a sort of government. Personally I'll take one central authority, as clueless as it may be at times, over thousands of communities with different standards, expectations and levels of competence.
The fact of the matter is most major roads are paid for and maintained by the government. I don't see where privatizing the road building process on a broad level (meaning pretty much leaving the where, when and how to companies and communities) would lead to better road travel for us. Maybe if we went in a different direction at some point in our past I could see it (well really I couldn't but its possible I suppose) but we are here now.
And you might have roads that abruptly end at the city limits since their neighbor may not want one in that exact location.
In So Cal they had started a trend of toll roads that didn't go over very well with the general populace. They built them with public funds and then after a period of time turned them over to a private company for maintainance. Being that CA has the highest gas taxes in the nation that are supposed to go towards maintaining our streets and highways we felt we were getting "double-dipped".
Unfortunately, like Soc Sec with the feds, our gas tax revenues are always raided to pay for other things. 
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 11:45:35 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3584
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
Rush has always stated his reasons for working is toi make money. I think we all work to make money. Its not a bad thing.
I haven't listened in a long time but last I knew Rush looks for callers who disagree. Debate is only a diatribe without an opposing view. Thing is, most people are not educated enough with their views to debate someone who is.
Rush also has never said he isn't one sided. His appeal is his conservative position, love it or hate it.
If he can get the pay, why not? He sells products very well. The snapple success is a prime example...going from a small company to a very large one mostly based on Rush's promotion of the product.
No liberal talk show host can compete with Rush in the marketplace. That...is probably the crux here.
The bottom line here is...wether or not you like Rush or his comments you cannot argue he makes his advertisers and employers tons of money. Why not pay him well for that ability?
The mindless sheep comment.....those who oppose conservatism have long believed the ideology is supported by poorly educated idiots so this comment just reinforces that prejudice.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 12:14:41 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2168
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
As for the sheep comment, given that conservatives value personal responsibility, and liberals support cradle-to-grave government care, methinks the word "sheep" might apply to the left side of the aisle....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 1:27:28 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6622
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Rush has always stated his reasons for working is toi make money.
I remember him saying, 'Find something you love to do, and then figure out how to make money doing it!' and I always thought that was a very good philosophy.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 2:36:58 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1991
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
For the record, sheep CAN and DO exist on both sides the left and the right. There are those on BOTH sides that do not deviate from what is termed the conservative/liberal position and IMHO that is being a sheep. Lead me for I cannot think for myself!
I, as a moderate, am always called the opposite of whomever I'm talking with. The libs think I'm conservative and the conservatives think I'm a lib and that's perfectly fine with me.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rush Signs New Deal... - 7/9/2008 8:06:33 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
I, as a moderate, am always called the opposite of whomever I'm talking with. The libs think I'm conservative and the conservatives think I'm a lib and that's perfectly fine with me.
You're right-- I'm libertarian, and I had you pegged as a danged populist!
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
