All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:28
May 6, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, here we are, back and ready to go.
Apologize for my voice today, folks.
I'm just a little hoarse.
But I'll make the most of it as we're doing open line Friday on Wednesday today.
I'll be out tomorrow and Friday.
We've got Mark Stein coming in tomorrow, and Mark Davis will be in on Friday.
So the rules on Friday apply to today.
We go to the phones, the program's yours.
You can bring up whatever you want for the most part.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 at the email address Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
I'm I'm getting email people here at the studio.
When are you going to talk about Colin Powell?
Well, I don't care.
I don't care what Colin Powell says.
This kind of stuff is said about me three times a day by liberals under the sun.
And Colin Powell is just another liberal.
I've already, he's he did this back in December, and I responded to it then.
Look at if you want to know what this is all about.
Colin Powell's out there saying the American people want more taxes.
They want bigger government.
He's out there saying, I am killing the Republican Party while he endorsed and voted for Obama.
Republican Party nominated the exact kind of candidate Colin Powell thinks the Republican Party should have, and he still endorsed Obama.
I just gotta he's just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country that had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama.
It was purely and solely based on race.
There can be no other explanation for it.
Now what what Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat.
Instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party.
He's not.
He's a full-fledged Democrat.
The only reason to endorse Obama is race.
I don't think Powell thinks he could get away with not endorsing Obama because the Republicans nominated the exact candidate and had the exact campaign other than Sarah Palin that uh that Colin Powell advocated.
So I don't care.
I I you know this kind of stuff is said about me ten times a day by liberals.
He's just one of them doing it.
Now, more importantly, well, we we just had a call from uh Gross Point, Michigan referencing a column by Ron Gettelfinger, who's the union thug that runs a UAW.
They have 55% of Chrysler after the Obama cramdown here.
And the and of course there's all kinds of stories now about the bullying that went on.
People are starting to speak out.
The hedge fund people are starting to speak out and say they couldn't, and then these people all voted for Obama.
You have to understand that the vast majority of these people on Wall Street that are being treated like dirt voted for this guy.
And now they're the ones scared to death of him and afraid to speak out, although a couple of them are.
But you heard Gettelfinger say, yeah, we've got 55%.
Well, it was discussed in the column he has it.
Well, the Detroit newspaper today.
Yeah, we've got 55%, but health care is what we care about, and we're gonna sell our 55% so that we can fund our health care trust.
Because it's really it's all about health care.
Which is no big news.
Rick Wagner, when he was running General Motors, essentially said, I thought I was coming here to build cars.
I learned when I became CEO that I have to administer a health care and pension fund.
That's what the job became.
So in light of this hell care, another big bugaboo that has everybody captivated right now, and Dr. Frank Luntz is a Republican consultant on the language of politics.
He's the Republican version of George Lackoff rhymes with, who advises the Democrats on language.
And Luntz has sent a 26-page confidential report to Republicans on Capitol Hill that somehow the politico ended up with from some Capitol Hill Republicans.
And this 26-page report from Dr. Lunz to Republicans is a warning to the Republicans that the American people want health care reform and that lawmakers need to try to avoid directly opposing President Obama.
So a word doctor listened to by Republicans, has a 26-page report telling Republicans the last thing you can do, do not oppose Obama on this.
Here's a quote from the um from the 26-page report.
You simply must be vocally and passionately on the side of reform.
The status quo is no longer acceptable.
If the dynamic becomes President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it, then the battle is lost, and every word in this document is useless.
Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that re uh protects the quality of health care for all Americans.
And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.
Lunz goes on to say that uh that the Republicans need to acknowledge the crisis in health care or suffer the consequences.
If you say that there's no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say.
It's a credibility killer for most Americans.
A better approach is to define the crisis in your own terms.
If you are one of the millions who can't afford health care, it's a crisis.
Better yet, if some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that's a crisis.
And the best, if you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that's a health care crisis.
This is what he's advocating Republicans say in agreeing that there's a crisis.
Now the uh next section or a following section in the 26-page report says this the arguments against the Democrats' health care plan must center around politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington, not the free market tax incentives or competition.
Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of health care.
They don't want to hear that you're opposed to government health care because it's too expensive.
Because to people in the country today, any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced.
So Republicans are being advised to embrace more government involvement to lower costs.
Don't say it's in it's anti-competitive, they don't care about current limits to competition, but they people are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care, so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach.
It's not an economic issue, it's a bureaucratic issue, is how uh Dr. Luntz is advising the Republicans to deal with Obama and the Democrats on health care.
Uh don't discuss economics, don't discuss competition, make it about bureaucracy.
Make it about uh uh and don't don't don't mention economics, and don't get into competition, and don't don't say you're opposed to government health care, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Maybe it's come to that.
I don't know.
Uh, but this is what the Republicans are being advised.
And one more thing from Dr. Luntz's report.
Waste, fraud, and abuse are your best targets for how to bring down costs.
Make no mistake, the high cost of health care is still public enemy number one on this issue, and why so many Americans, including Republicans and conservatives, think the Democrats can handle health care better than the GOP.
You can't blame it on the lack of a private market.
In case you missed it, capitalism isn't exactly in vogue these days.
But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything that government controls.
So Republicans are being advised, hey, capitalism's not a big deal, right?
It's not really in vogue, so don't start talking free markets and capitalism.
Accept the premise that government has to do this, just go about it a different way.
Waste, fraud and abuse, blah, blah, blah.
Otherwise you'll lose people.
Now there's another way of putting this.
And I think you might be able to apply this to a number of other issues as well.
And a lot of people on our side, we sit here and we agonize over how in the name of hell can all these Obama policies and Democrat policies be accepted, not rejected.
And how come when we talk about great policies in the past that have worked and philosophy and so forth, how come it falls on deaf ears?
Here's a way of thinking about it.
And reading Dr. Lunz's advice to the Republicans sort of set up a little turned on a little light.
How about this?
Maybe this might make sense.
Liberals, I'm talking about liberal voters and Democrat voters are not even concerned with policy.
They have beliefs.
Beliefs that Republicans are racist.
Beliefs that Republicans are sexist.
Beliefs that Republicans are bigots.
Beliefs that Republicans want to screw the little guy.
Beliefs.
They don't ever see policy that says this because there is no policy or set of policies that causes this to happen.
In other words, the Democrat PR machine has been very effective in creating just standard operating procedure beliefs that people have, stereotypes, if you will, of Republicans.
And while Democrats and liberal voters have beliefs about Republicans, they also have beliefs about Democrats.
And what are those beliefs?
That they're compassionate, tolerant, love the little guy, only want the best for the country, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But they believe it.
It's not anything that they have deduced from policy.
So on the other side of this, you have conservative Republicans arguing against this and trying to persuade these people who hold beliefs that they're wrong by articulating policy.
And maybe the theory is that somebody arguing policy to a believer has no chance.
Take belief in God.
Take belief in global warming.
I mean, it kind of works when you look at it in global warming.
There's no evidence, no scientific evidence.
But people believe it.
They believe it's happening for whatever reason.
They believe the people, they believe algorithm, they believe the pictures they've been shown about polar bears on diminishing glaciers.
They believe it.
They have beliefs.
And you argue facts and policy, it falls on deaf ears.
It's like Christians will not be talked out of believing in God by people who try to give them what they consider to be facts that refute it.
Or, well, you can't prove it, so why do you think it?
I don't think it, I believe it.
It's an article of faith with me.
That I believe in God and Jesus Christ.
And you can try to talk to those people all day long about if you don't believe it and you think they're wrong, you don't get, you don't get the first base with them with any evidence that you produce whatsoever, because the belief is the belief.
And so we're up against a bunch of people that have beliefs, and you might say that these people have a religious void in their lives and has been replaced by a belief in other things.
A belief in Democrats, a belief in uh government, a belief in liberalism, whatever it is, and the argument of policy.
This is why, you know, I frankly cringe when I see Republican alternatives here.
Well, we we okay, they believe in big government, we gotta say we do too.
Uh they believe that uh only government can fix health care.
Okay, we have to say that we agree with that, we just have to do it better.
I don't know how this is going to work.
I I don't I don't know how telling believers that, hey, I believe what you believe too, but then at the same time saying, but I don't think we ought to do it the way you believe we should.
I don't know how that works.
Especially when we don't believe it.
Like I don't think that government is the way to solve the health care problem.
And if I was running for office, I don't care what I was advised, I wouldn't say so.
Now, this is what I meant yesterday about politicians having to pander.
They go out and they listen, and okay, people say either government needs to fix health care.
Okay, that's what the voters say, and my job is to get reelected or elected, so I gotta come up with a plan that this government's gonna fix this.
That's why I could never be a politician.
I don't I don't think that governments do I have to think government is the problem.
I think government involvement has led us to this so-called crisis.
And not just in health care, but in a number of things.
But I will have to admit that arguing that with examples of policy success or failure to a bunch of people who just believe what they believe with no need for evidence, by the way.
If you believe something, you don't have to have Evidence.
So it's presents, you know, it's an even it's an even uh greater challenge.
It's just a different way of expressing a sentiment that I've expressed earlier.
Okay, you talked with people who don't think they feel.
So if you're a thinker, use logic, progressive uh equations to try to explain things.
You don't get to first base with people who are simply feeling something.
And they certainly don't want their feelings altered.
They don't want if something makes them feel good and right, they don't want to believe anything differently.
I got to take quick time out.
Sit tight, we will be back and continue.
Stay with us.
Okay, we are back.
A couple of audio sounded by chair that we'll go back to the phones.
First off this afternoon, CNN Live, the guest, American University Chair of Islamic Studies, Aknar Ahmed.
And he said this about Barack Obama's challenges.
Remember that today for President Obama, his greatest headache is not coming from Rush Limboh and the Republicans.
It's really coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He staked his reputation and his foreign policy in that part of the world.
So here you have the American University Chair of Islamic Studies, Aknar Ahmed saying uh Limbo, the Republicans are not Obama's greatest headache.
It's Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Pakistan's falling apart.
Pakistan's falling apart, and the uh the Taliban's taking over.
They did a stupid thing.
They advocated a stupid, they gave the Taliban a province.
At the urging of the Obama Minister, they gave the Taliban a province in Pakistan's okay, you guys, you want to be the Taliban, be the Taliban in his province.
And guess what?
The Taliban's taking over neighboring provinces are trying to.
Once again, even in Pakistan exhibiting a total lack of understanding of the enemy of evil and what their intent is.
And they have every intention of getting back in control in Afghanistan.
And uh Dr. Dr. Ahmed here is right in the sense that uh this is where Obama has applied himself foreign policy-wise, other than the, you know, well, Hamas too.
You know, he's he's legitimizing Hamas, he's uh putting out little threatening notices to Israel.
If you don't accept Hamas, why we might have a policy uh thing on in uh Iran for you that you don't like.
Uh I mean, we've got a thug acracy going on here, but Obama goes to the G20, and then he goes to the NATO summit and he asks our allies for help in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He doesn't get it.
It was an abject failure there.
NATO allies are gonna send 5,000 trainers, no combat troops.
So um, Dr. Aknar Ahmed is exactly right about Obama's big headaches today, but this, of course, hasn't stopped other Democrats in this country from saying uh I am the problem.
This is Larry King live last night talking to James Carville, and he asked Carpell, what about Sarah Palin?
Well, we had our friend Rush Limbaugh saying that she's the most articulate person in the Republican Party.
Uh these uh Republicans that were at that pizza parlor didn't want didn't want her.
They were forced to sort of bring in after Rush out of pistol whip.
Now, this is fascinating, too.
This is uh this is the listening tour.
And I guess they was the Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor thing, and they went out to the pizza parlor, and I just you know it's snurdly.
This was inadvertent.
Snerdley asked me a question.
You know, Romney had a comment about uh the the uh the time one hundred list.
He was asked about the Time 100 list.
The only two Republicans on it were me and Palin.
And Romney said, Are you sure that wasn't a uh a beautiful people list?
He was just making a joke about it.
And Snurley said, Why are they dumping on Palin?
Why they said, because they're afraid of her.
So bam bam, they then they decided to invite Palin to go on the listening tour.
Now the Democrats think I forced it.
The Republicans at the Pizza Parlor didn't want her forced to bring her in after Rush pistol whipped them.
So this morning on the on Scarborough show on PMS NBC, had Eric Cantor on, said, let's start with Rush Limbaugh, who Seems to be mocking the idea of a listening tour.
What do you say to Rush?
This is not a listening tour.
What the National Council for a New America is an opportunity for us to go out across this country to talk about our conservative principles and to appeal to as many elements in our society as we can and to really talk to them at a higher level and say, look, there are some transcendental goals that we're all about in this country, and they can best be achieved through conservative principles of freedom and opportunity.
All right, good.
So Cantor says it never was a listening tour.
Good.
So maybe it was misreported as a listening tour.
But the reason it was is because Jeb Bush said we're going to listen, we're going to learn, and we're going to lead.
Then Cantor added this.
Russ is talking about conservative principles, and we're talking about conservative principles.
And no question, Joe, this president is extremely popular personally, but it's his policies once they once the details are fleshed out that have proven in the polls over and again to be not very popular at all.
That's why we do need in the Republican Party to go out and talk about our conservative principles and how they apply to the challenges that this country is facing and the challenges that people are facing in communities across this country.
Now it does it doesn't matter where you go.
You could go on Scarborough Show or any other show at MSNBC if you're Republican, what Larry King alive, and they're doing their damnedest to drive a wedge between these Republicans and me.
I don't know who it is they're trying to destroy more.
Me or the Republicans.
I sure they'd take both, but I think they're actually aiming at me here.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
I got a note.
I got a note from a friend of mine last night who uh an email note who thought that the Republicans at the Pizza Parlour were on this listening tour.
And he was a little bit upset about it.
And let me just read to you the note that he sent me.
They wouldn't need a listening tour if they were listening.
Did they not hear the roar of applause at your CPAC speech?
Didn't they not see the result of that?
Did they not hear the roar of applause at every Palin speech during the campaign?
Did they not notice the lack of attendance and lack of applause when McCain was campaigning without Palin?
Did they not wonder why McCain had so many events with Palin?
Have they not seen your radio ratings?
Have they missed the sales figures on Levin's book?
Did they not hear and see the massive protests from their own party regarding amnesty?
Did they not hear about or see the hundreds of protests known as Tea Parties?
Did these Republicans listen to the people speaking at the Tea Parties?
Do they not hear Democrats hijack Reagan's words and pervert them to sell liberalism?
Does that reflect you certainly does?
I mean, when you we I you know, this is of course something I would never say about myself.
A friend of mine says, I can understand what do they need to hear?
What more do they need to see out there?
He also says, Do they not see how scared of you the Democrats are?
Do they not see how unafraid of them the Democrats are?
What is there to learn?
He concludes his notes.
Uh, here, this is Jack Cafferty montage.
CNN's the situation room.
Rush Limbaugh suggesting that Sarah Palin is, quote, the most prominent and articulate voice for good old-fashioned American conservatism.
Limbaugh also insists that some Republican leaders hate, despise, and fear Sarah Palin, along with finding her embarrassing.
The embarrassing part I understand.
He's referring to that new group formed by old Republicans called the National Council for a New America.
Well, don't you know?
Once again, Limbaugh speaks, the Republicans snap to attention and salute.
No sooner had he said all this stuff than Congressman Eric Cantor announced that Sarah Palin has finally accepted an offer to join the National Council for a New America.
Go figure.
Why do you care, Jack?
You know, this is the question that we why do you people care?
If Palin's such a dork, if her family is so embarrassing, if the Republican Party is so laughably irrelevant, why do you care?
You're just jealous.
You wish some Democrats snap two when you said something, Jack.
But why do you care?
Why do these people care?
And it's like I said, they care because they're afraid.
All right, people have been waiting patiently.
We will uh we'll continue on the phones in uh Land F New Hampshire.
This is Andrew.
Great to have you, sir.
Thank you for waiting.
Thank you, Megadetto.
Thank you, sir.
attorney BB and attorney you should not be prosecuted, disparred, or reprimanded in any way.
Their client, the United States of America, for her citizens, ask their lawyers to define torture.
How close to the line can you get without going over and violating the law?
Just like umpires, just like uh in football, referees define what is out of bounds, what is foul.
The line is intent.
The USA asked where's the line, and they decided the line is intent.
And intent matters in the law very much.
The difference between negligent homicide, for example, manslaughter, and murder in the first degree is intent.
Without intent, it's negligent homicide.
With intent to do something else, but causing a death, it may be manslaughter.
And premeditation makes it capital murder.
Murder and it's a very good thing.
Okay, so what you're saying here is that the Bibee and the memo, you the the John U and the Bibi memos had no intent to torture.
There was no when they when they put together the procedure, there was no intent to torture anybody here.
And therefore it can't be said that they set out to torture.
Is that your point that they're right?
That's correct.
Exactly correct, because uh just like uh Okay, now here's what you have to understand though.
Now what while while you and I agree on that, you also have to add the fact that Eric Holder, the Department of Justice, agree to it.
However, they don't agree to it when applied to the American lawyers.
They only agree with that concept when John Demyanyuk faces extradition of Germany, his lawyers say you can't send him to Germany, he's gonna be tortured.
They resort to the same reasoning that Bibe and uh and John Yu reused in their memos.
No, the Germans aren't gonna torture because they don't intend to torture Demonioc.
Or Dim Yanyuk, I've heard it.
I agree, but we're used to we I beg your pardon.
We're used to um them changing the rules though for one of the aids their side.
For example, the administration officials who blamed their computer or somebody else for their tax returns being wrong.
What were they doing?
They were negating their intent.
I did not mean to not pay my taxes.
Please blame something else, please treat me differently.
Right.
That was Geithner.
I didn't I'm I I did turbo tax screwed up.
I didn't intend to cheat the government.
Yeah.
Which of course, which of course is is is patently false because he did it over a number of years.
Yes, and and and and and he's not in any way being reprimanded, yet they have the audacity to try to go after these attorneys.
These attorneys accurately describe the crime.
To torture, you must want to, and you must intend to, and then you must do.
You cannot act accidentally torture somebody.
And you can cannot and should not be punished for uh advising your client that that's where the line is.
That if you hit the ball this far.
Wait a minute, you're talking about within the bounds of the law.
This administration's not about that.
This is about pure totalitarian politics.
But your program is about the law, and America should be about the law.
Well, I agree.
I I I agree here.
But but I'm simply I'm I'm I'm saying this is why nobody cares.
And and if all the New York the New York Times story does not detail any of this.
All the New York Times stories says, okay, they're not going to be prosecuted, Obama administration magnanimous.
They're just gonna recommend that maybe state bars disbar these guys a reprobate.
They still want to destroy them.
They just want it done somewhere else other than the DOJ.
And and by doing it that way, uh, Rush, they get a lower threshold for evidence because if they were going to be going to criminally prosecute, they'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these attorneys did something wrong.
But if they take it to the civil level and for just disbarment, the level of scrutiny can be much lower.
They can just say, was it merely 51% instead of beyond reasonable doubt?
Was the uh the propensity of the evidence a little lower, and therefore we can get the equivalent of a conviction.
You're not making any money in jail, and you're not making any money without your law license.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
Well, I'm glad you called or clarified that.
Well, thank you very much, Rush.
All right, Andrew.
Jam in Melbourne, Florida.
I'm glad you called.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey Rosh, it's an honor.
I just want to say that uh once again the far left and the Bamster have succeeded in destroying another um private citizen.
Um what's her name?
Carrie Pregene, I think.
You know, I'm not uh not into pornography.
I cannot stand that I'm a Christian, nor do I watch these beauty pageants, but I saw um the following day.
I liked her answer, and she actually stood up in front of American, what she believed in.
And that idiot had no right to even ask her that.
She wasn't running for Congress or anything, or any kind of other political things.
So um it's just pretty sad that you can't speak your mind, and I mean anybody that comes out, they seem to just destroy them, discredit them.
Anything anything that they can do.
So what do you have to say about that?
Well, uh, I think it's been going on a long time.
I think this is this is standard operating procedure for the left.
Don't debate opponents, destroy them.
Credibility, reputation, image, or life.
It's uh it's what they're all about.
Carrie Pregene simply offered her opinion on on uh on gay marriage that my my opinion on is founded in the Bible.
Oh no, you can't say the Bible night and so it's it's time to uh it's time to destroy her.
Uh left is on the march.
Folks.
Plain and simple.
We will be right back.
Phil in New Haven, Connecticut.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush, infinite ditto.
And um first time long time.
The uh the reason I'm calling is on April 15th, there were thousands, thousands of us who had never taken any time out of our busy schedules, out of our work days, to go to protest rallies because we are scared, um, we are over taxed and we're overburdened.
Of course, I'm talking about the tea parties.
And to hear Jeb Bush, who like you said, I do respect him as well.
To hear him yesterday saying, We're gonna go out and listen.
Um is offensive to me.
Um there were thousands of people screaming, screaming to be heard, and what I'm hearing from him in in that statement is you know, no one's listening.
And and does that mean they're just doing the political two step I'm listing and they're gonna do what they want anyway?
Well now now remember we just we just played soundbite some Eric Canners.
It's not a listening tour.
We're out telling people about conservative uh application, conser application of conservative uh principles and ideas to the issues uh Americans face.
I know Jeb said that they're gonna go out and listen, learn, and lead, but Cantor last night on television this morning on TV said, No, we're not we're not really listening.
I understand your point.
That's why I read the note from my friend a mere moments ago.
What do they need to hear that they can't already see all over the country?
I understand that.
Uh Wendy in Nashville, thank you for calling.
Nice to have you with us.
How are you doing today?
Pretty good, thank you.
I wanted to call and thank you so very, very much for the uh select comfort bed that you sent me.
Well, I'm glad to know that you got it.
How long have you had it?
Um I've had it about a week.
It uh came in last Wednesday.
Now what kind did you get?
Did you go full boat?
Did you get the king size?
Yes, sir, I did.
I got the uh I ten.
And how have you enjoyed it so far?
Oh I I love it.
I am sleeping better.
I know that my husband's sleeping a lot better, because when I don't, you know, toss and sort of flip flop, then I know he sleeps better, so it's great.
I still haven't found my uh level yet.
I I think he's at a fifty.
You mean you haven't found your sleep number yet?
Why not?
That should be easy.
What do you what are you experimenting with?
Hard or soft?
Well, I went to uh a soft and then um I went up to kind of like a medium-ish, and I'm like, well, maybe I should just try like a a seventy or something like that.
Yeah, why don't you jack it up to 75 or 80 and see how it works?
What's your sleep number?
Well, I go back and forth.
Um I I'm anywhere from seventy-five to a hundred.
I like it hard.
Really?
I like it hard.
Well, I'm thinking that maybe because I have a bad back, maybe I should keep it a little bit, you know, Well, you should try it.
That's the beauty of the sleep number bed.
You can try it in any what uh you'll find the best uh firmness for you that that works.
Well, I wanted to thank you, and and also Mr. Carson, he is he is a riot.
We uh we were emailing, you know, when w there was some issues, and uh he is a blast.
I loved emailing him.
But you know, he really did help me, and I wanted to thank him personally too, and thank you.
It's it's a wonderful bed.
It It's great.
It's helping me, it's helping my husband, and thank you.
You're welcome, Wendy.
You're welcome.
She called us some time ago and was complaining about something, and I gave her a sleep number bed.
And uh and now she is calling to say thanks.
That's what this was about.
Apparently, she said H.R. was emailing with her back and forth on the uh uh on the details of this getting it all done.
And uh the union the union delivery guys you're having a problem with, is that what it was?
Okay, having a problem with the delivery guys in Jersey and so forth.
And but H.R., you're gonna be happy.
She uh she interpreted your sarcasm as wit and humor.
That's great.
I mean, if I were you, I'd be celebrating.
Uh Jan in Jackson, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Um, I was wondering yesterday I heard on the news about this Obama administration going after some of these offshore accounts.
Yes, ma'am.
Um, I'm wondering if you could shed some light on that.
He's going after businesses and individuals.
Could you uh expand on that?
Very simple.
It's very, very simple.
Without you don't even need to understand the details.
You need to understand how Obama looks at businesses and individuals in this country.
They exist to fund the government.
And any opportunity that anybody takes, even within the law, to limit their tax liability, he's gonna find them and he's gonna change it.
He refers to offshore tax havens and loopholes.
These are not havens and loopholes.
They are laws.
There's a reason that companies have uh some some companies do business overseas.
Labor is cheaper, their market is over there, or what have you.
Here's what you have to understand that all this is, all this is, Jan.
And it's it's delivered, by the way, in the kind of language that's designed to please the little guy.
These people, these companies are cheating America.
They're avoiding their taxes.
The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the civilized, westernized, industrialized world.
It is standard operating procedure that when there are tax laws that you can take advantage of that you take advantage of.
All this is a massive tax increase.
And the supposed beneficiaries of all this, employees, the little guys, they are the ones that are going to get hurt.
Liberalism's prescriptions always hurt the people intended to be helped.
What Obama should be doing, and what he should have announced in January, is a cut in the corporate tax rate and a suspension of the capital gains rate.
This would have incentivized all kinds of investment and purchase of stock equities, assets in American businesses.
It would have given them more capital to expand and hire, but that's not his objective.
His objective is to control as much of it as possible.
He wants to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners, and American corporations have way too much of the American uh of America's wealth, and they've come by it by cheating people, in fleecing people, and Obama's gonna get even with them.
This is gonna cause employment in other countries, allied countries, to be lost.
The Brits are already concerned about jobs lost because of this.
This is just a tax increase, pure and simple, Jan, nothing more.
It's the fastest three hours in media, and already two of them are gone, but we have one more to go, and it's coming right up right after this.
▲
Export Selection