• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh: Economy Being Destroyed 'Under The Guise' Of Saving Lives

It's at least ten times as deadly as the flu, there is no vaccine, and no proven cure. If we did as you suggested, it's likely a significant percentage of the population would come down with the virus within a few weeks at most, and would overwhelm the health care system. If half of the population got the disease, and 1% of those died, then that would be roughly a million and a half deaths.

And, those estimates, both the number of infected and the percentage of deaths given an overwhelmed health care system, are pretty conservative.

No they're not conservative. They're based on incomplete data, which I've shown over and over again.

Edit: And it's not at least 10 times as deadly as the flu. That's is just incorrect. We don't know exactly how deadly it is, but the best guess is .5% or so, which is about 5x deadlier than a typical flu. But that's really just conjecture.
 
No they're not conservative. They're based on incomplete data, which I've shown over and over again.

Edit: And it's not at least 10 times as deadly as the flu. That's is just incorrect. We don't know exactly how deadly it is, but the best guess is .5% or so, which is about 5x deadlier than a typical flu. But that's really just conjecture.

You have your conjecture and your best guess, but I'll go by what the medical experts say.

What do you think would stop the virus from infecting more than half the population? Everyone would be exposed. In all likelihood, a lot more than half would get the virus.

and that 1% figure we get from those medical experts would likely be higher without access to medical care.

So, yes, the one and a half million figure is a conservative estimate.
 
Rush Limbaugh: Economy Being Destroyed 'Under The Guise' Of Saving Lives

Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday suggested stay-at-home measures to protect people against the coronavirus pandemic were destroying the economy "under the guise" of saving lives. He also gave air to a conspiracy theory that Democrats and communists were plotting the downfall of capitalism.

"Are we just going to sit by and watch $22 trillion - that's the value, that's the sum total of the GDP, that's the U.S. economy - are we just going to sit by here and watch it evaporate?" the right-wing radio host said on "The Rush Limbaugh Show." "Because that's what we're doing, under the guise of not losing any unnecessary life - meaning we want to try to save as many lives as we can."


Now, I don't agree that this is some Democratic, socialist plot by any means, but the economy is getting tanked as a result. If the US GDP goes down by 50% and unemployment is up by 30% next month that's worse than Depression stats. Rush has nothing left to lose with his diagnosis, so he's flame-throwing for sure. But any truth or straight up horse****?

Hard decision. Who to believe? The medical experts or the guy telling anyone who would listen it's nothing but the common cold.

Rush was the crazy rights god of talking heads for the longest time, now it's rush who, hannity who. Hypocrites.
 
Limbaugh is a pimp for the republican party regardless of where they stand on the issues.

With that said, I pretty much agree with him about all this protectionism destroying the economy. That's pretty much the case. But while Rush primarily blames democrats, I blame the entire government for shutting everything down, putting our lives on hold, and creating what amounts to martial law. Both parties are to blame.
 
That's the lie you've been told and that you believe. The 2008 QE didn't cause inflation, so no problem keep running those printing presses.
We don't know when the inflation will start, but it will, and hyper-inflation isn't fun.

I'm guessing you're not an economist. Which economists do you listen to?
 
You have your conjecture and your best guess, but I'll go by what the medical experts say.

What do you think would stop the virus from infecting more than half the population? Everyone would be exposed. In all likelihood, a lot more than half would get the virus.

and that 1% figure we get from those medical experts would likely be higher without access to medical care.

So, yes, the one and a half million figure is a conservative estimate.

That's all conjecture. The numbers are what they are, and as testing expands, you're going to see the rates plummet. We don't really know how many people have this thing. It's a lot.
 
Thanks, but no thanks, for the "Economism" (i.e. an incomplete and cherry-picked understanding of economics recruited for ideological ends).

The economy is a lot more complicated than what you learned in 7th grade history class about Weimar Germany. For example, the people who shrieked that Fed policy after 2008 would cause "hyperinflation" have no explanation for why that didn't happen. Nor do they care to try, because they are driven not by an understanding of economics, but by the desire to delegitimize any government policy that might actually help people. Individuals and businesses were unwilling and/or unable to borrow. On top of that, no one wanted to lend either, resulting in freezes in the credit markets, which in turn made people even less willing to borrow. If the Fed hadn't taken action, we would have had a significant deflation, which would have further cut spending, inventory and hiring, and this would spiral like the Great Depression.

I.e. any inflationary pressures exerted by QE merely countered some of the deflationary impacts of the recession. This is why during a recession, central banks lower interest rates to encourage borrowing and lending, and keep money circulating; and during the good times, the central bank raises interest rates, in part to keep the economy from overheating, and also to ensure it can cut rates during the bad times. (This is why it was moronic for Trump to hammer on the Fed to lower already-low interest rates during the good times -- now the Fed can't have much impact, so now the government needs to rely on fiscal stimulus, which means borrowing mind-bogglingly large sums over and over again on bailouts and handouts.)

There's a bit more to it than that, but long story short: Central bankers won't cause a hyperinflation. They know what they're doing. You do not.

I have heard all that before, you are just repeating the mythology. You don't provide a single reason for your claim that the central bankers know what they are doing, or that it can't cause inflation.

And, by the way, the Fed kept interest rates low since 2008, regardless of how the economy was doing. Trump has no control over them.

I understand that 2008 was serious and could have led to a depression. I understand that low interest rates and QE were supposedly the remedy.

HOWEVER, lots of experts think the Fed's interventions set us up for worse problems the next time there is a crisis. Like, for example, now.

You have blind faith in experts, but you don't realize that they don't all agree with each other.

QE didn't cause extreme inflation because most of the money hasn't gone into circulation. Why not? And what if it does?

There are plenty of questions we should be asking. But, like most people, you would rather trust the experts because trying to understand is too much trouble. And THAT is why they can do whatever they want.
 
I have heard all that before, you are just repeating the mythology. You don't provide a single reason for your claim that the central bankers know what they are doing, or that it can't cause inflation.
:roll:

I already explained one major reason why QE did not, in fact, cause anything even resembling hyperinflation. Here are a few more!

• Central bankers are trained economists, who spend considerable amounts of time studying and gaining experience in their field. That includes studying past events, such as how Ben Bernanke was an expert on the Great Depression, and why monetary and other policies of that era made the Great Depression worse.

• Central bankers, especially at the Fed, have access to all sorts of data you and I do not (and are certainly watching public data much more routinely than the average person). They are constantly watching for the effects their policies have on measures like inflation.

• Central bankers, especially at the Fed, have specific inflation targets. Something like QE is not going to set off a chain reaction, that's just not how it works. If they believe that QE is causing inflation to rise past the targets, then they scale back or stop it.

• You only get inflation when the "printed" money goes into the real economy. E.g. if the Fed generated $2 trillion and the federal government used all of it to purchase goods and services, then you would see inflation. That's what Zimbabwe did. That's not what the Fed did after 2008, and it's not what they are doing now.

Do you even understand what QE is?


And, by the way, the Fed kept interest rates low since 2008, regardless of how the economy was doing. Trump has no control over them.
Get real. Trump was hammering on the Fed to lower interest rates, even threatening to fire Powell. Powell wasn't taking direct orders, but he should have spent the past two years very gradually inching up rates, and it's pretty clear why that didn't happen.

Trump also appoints people to the Fed, including the chair. One of his recent picks, Judy Shelton, is a wacko who believes in the gold standard, who spent years parroting your "hyperinflation" claims -- but once Trump wanted lower interest rates, so did she. Hmmmmm


I understand that 2008 was serious and could have led to a depression. I understand that low interest rates and QE were supposedly the remedy.

HOWEVER, lots of experts think the Fed's interventions set us up for worse problems the next time there is a crisis. Like, for example, now.
Hello? Did you not read my post? Yeesh.


You have blind faith in experts, but you don't realize that they don't all agree with each other.
:roll:

This is not a matter of "blind faith," it's a result of actually understanding how monetary policy works. And pretty much no reputable economists believe that QE will cause hyperinflation. The only people who believe that are cranks and gold bugs.

I might add that yes, even the experts can screw up. One key example is Alan Greenspan, who adopted a laissez faire attitude, and actively fought against regulation of the derivatives and mortgage markets. Even he realized that his faith in free markets was a mistake.


QE didn't cause extreme inflation because most of the money hasn't gone into circulation. Why not? And what if it does?
LOL

Again, as I pointed out, one key factor is that there were already deflationary pressures.

It didn't go into circulation, because it stayed on the books at commercial banks as reserves. The money gradually goes back to the Fed as interest payments on the bonds that were purchased. You clearly don't understand how QE works.


There are plenty of questions we should be asking. But, like most people, you would rather trust the experts because trying to understand is too much trouble. And THAT is why they can do whatever they want.
No, it's that some of us actually know what we're talking about, before we say it.
 
That's all conjecture. The numbers are what they are, and as testing expands, you're going to see the rates plummet. We don't really know how many people have this thing. It's a lot.

as long as we continue with the shelter in place strategy, it will remain conjecture. If we decide that it's not worth it, it will become reality.
 
as long as we continue with the shelter in place strategy, it will remain conjecture. If we decide that it's not worth it, it will become reality.

Cowardice is so often abetted by ignorance.
 
The clam your making is that shutdown is necessary. That keeping me in my home and tanking our economy is necessary for your safety. That's the claim that you can't prove. Which makes the rest this pointless. My argument is that you don't have enough information to prove my rights should be sidelined.



No right of yours is being denied w/o constitutional right of public health and safety "trumping" conflicting rights. If you don't believe the proof is self-evident as to why all being done is necessary for your safety, there is no more evidence I can give you as all is in the public realm. There is no purpose to shutdown the economy. That shutdown is a consequence of the C19 impact on our society, which includes the necessity of public health and safety measure.
 
Back
Top Bottom