All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
January 14, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, we're back, Rush Linbock.
Great to have you with us today, my friends, as is always the case.
Service of humanity.
From behind the golden EIB microphone.
Our telephone number is 800 282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
Okay, Obama taxing the big banks.
I want to spend a little bit more time on this in the monologue, and we'll get to your phone calls shortly in the uh in the next segment of this hour.
But this is important.
Not only is Obama doing this to distract everybody from his utter failures with the economy, job losses, uh, foreclosures.
Uh he's also attacking uh one of the uh uh highly visible sectors in the private sector, the banking industry, because that's how he has been trained.
It affords multiple opportunities for him to advance his agenda.
And it all requires, which is something pretty simple in their view, hatred of the rich, hatred of big banks, hatred of people who seem to be making out really good during a recession, uh, and capitalizing on that, basically give you people the pitchforks and have you storming Wall Street uh uh metaphorically, you're so outraged.
So Obama, your savior comes along and starts punishing them for making profits in a recession, and you're supposed to cheer him on.
Your life won't change at all.
In fact, it might get worse because your ATM fee is going to go up.
As these banks are taxed, they're gonna pass as much of it along to you and and all of us as possible.
That's just how it works, which Obama also knows.
So again I ask, didn't we want the bank profits to go up?
Wasn't that the purpose of bailing them out?
If we didn't want them to remain profitable, and they must remain profitable to remain open, if we didn't want them to remain profitable, we wouldn't have bailed them out.
We bailed them out so they can make profits, and now they've done it and they paid it all back with interest, and now we are going to tax them for being successful, for profiting.
Here's a story from December 7th of last year.
Administration to slash bailout cost estimate.
Our memories are long.
He's not counting on that, but our memories are long.
The Obama administration will lose 200 billion dollars less than expected from the federal bailout program and is looking at using part of the savings to fund new job creation efforts.
The Treasury official said Sunday that the administration now believes the cost of the financial rescue program will be at least 200 billion dollars below the $341 billion estimate it made in August.
The official said that because the administration's new projections had not been released, uh, as for anonymity, the lower estimate reflected faster repayments by big banks.
I'm just reading this to prove to you the claim that they've paid it back.
This is December 2009.
The uh reduced cost of the bailout is reflected by faster repayments by the banks and less spending on some of the rescue programs as the financial sector recovered from its fee freefall more quickly than the administration originally expected.
So rather than take a tact that say, look, the bailout worked, rather than say, whoa, it's good, it's great, the banks well, you can start seeing some lending now.
Maybe we can start seeing some private sector activity.
No.
Rather than do that, cover up the fact that they paid it back with interest and now make them the enemy.
And I urge all of you not to fall for this.
This is not to defend the banks.
This is not to line up on their side of uh unilaterally and without exception.
It's it's it's simply uh this is an attack on the private sector, folks, and uh this man is in the process of destroying it, and we have to stand up against that.
I want to go back to Saul Alinsky.
This is where this is where Obama was trained.
He's a community agitator in Chicago.
Every one of them learned Olinski.
Hillary Clinton loved Olinsky, wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on it.
Uh leftist radicals all swear by Olinsky.
His primary work, the book Rules for Radicals, was dedicated to Lucifer, the first ever rebel.
Pages 162 and 163, new tactics and old.
Speaking of issues, let's look at the issue of pollution.
Here again, we Can uh use the haves against the have nots to get what we want, or the haves against the haves, in fact.
When utilities or heavy industries talk about the people, they mean the banks and other power sectors of their own world.
If their banks say start pressing them, then they listen and hurt.
The target, therefore, should be the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries, and the goal, significant lessening of pollution.
Let us begin by making the banks live up to their own public statements.
All banks want money and advertise for new savings and checking accounts.
They even offer premium prizes to those who will open accounts.
Open it now, you've got to remember this stuff's written uh 60s.
So you'd have to replace now the steel industry and and uh uh some of these other uh businesses that banks are in league with high-tech industry and and but the the the theory holds, and of course banks no longer give you a toaster for opening a uh a shopping or savings account, but but they still lure people in.
But the point is they are still offering all kinds of things to get new customers to give them their money.
All banks want money and advertise for new savings and checking accounts, and they even offer premium prizes.
You open a savings account in the bank, uh and do that.
It's more than just a routine matter.
First, you sit down with one of the multiple VPs or employees and begin to fill out forms and respond to questions for at least thirty minutes.
If a thousand or more people all moved in, each with five or ten dollars to open up a savings account, the bank's floor functions would be paralyzed.
Again, as is in the case of the of the shop in, the police would be immobilized.
There's no legal occupation or illegal occupation.
The bank's in a difficult position here.
It knows what's happening, but still it does not want to antagonize would-be depositors.
The bank's public image would be destroyed if some thousand would-be depositors were arrested or forcibly ejected from the premises.
The element of ridicule is here again, a continuous chain of action and reaction is formed.
Following this, the people can return in a few days and close their accounts and then return again later to open new accounts.
This is what I would call a middle class guerrilla attack.
It could well cause an irrational reaction on the part of the banks, which would then be directed against their large customers, for example, the polluting utilities or whatever were the obvious stated targets of the middle class organizations.
The target of a secondary attack such as this is always outrage.
The bank thus is likely to react more emotionally since it's a uh it is a as a body feels that it's innocent, being punished for another's sins at the same time.
This kind of action could also be combined with social refreshments and gathering together with friends downtown as well as with the general enjoyment of seeing the discomfiture and confusion on the part of the establishment.
The middle class guerrillas would enjoy themselves as they increased the pressure on their enemies.
Well, in this example in the 60s, instead of a thousand people showing up, opening a five or ten dollar savings account and paralyzing the bank, it was acorn that went in with the community redevelopment act and demanded loans for people that couldn't pay them back.
The whole point was to damage the bank, to paralyze the banks.
The whole point was to get the banks to give money to people that they otherwise wouldn't give it to, people that had no business being loaned money or lent money or having money given to them for the express purpose of income redistribution.
And for all this to happen, the banks needed to be demonized.
The banks had to be demonized, so the banks were lumped with.
Back in the Linsky's day, the uh the big businesses of the time, the big utilities, big steel, uh, big polluters.
In this era, 2010 America, rather than big banks being associated with uh those kinds of industries, and they still are associated with utilities and uh pollution, but this it now the big banks are in league uh with other big banks.
And the big banks are in league with uh with themselves.
The big banks are seen to be giving themselves all kinds of money and profit.
The big banks are seen to be in league with the Federal Reserve.
And but the the theory, the Alinsky theory still holds, is you run and you paralyze the bank for the express purpose of uh seeing to it that people who otherwise would not have access to bank money get it.
And they succeeded.
The Community Redevelopment Act was precisely based on the concept of affordable housing, and as people like Barney Frank defined affordable housing, affordable housing is housing you don't have to pay for.
And look at that that subprime mortgage crisis is the root of all of what we are still facing today.
And yet, after forcing these banks to take TARP money, they pay it back with interest.
And now Obama announces today a new tax on them because they are insensitive.
In times of trouble and stress, they are continuing to reward themselves with high compensation and big bonuses.
Well, if you look at the activity on Wall Street, they're having a pretty good year.
It's the only place in our economy people feel comfortable investing money.
Those that have money to invest.
I mean, there's there's nothing in the private sector worth investing in right now on a on a large scale.
Nobody knows what's going to happen to the private sector.
It's largely stagnant.
But Wall Street's sitting there, and it's doing pretty well.
It's the only place to put and gold, of course, but the point is that these people are now made targets because they did exactly what they were told to do.
They took the money, they paid it back, they're now showing profits.
We wanted them to show a profit, did we not?
That's the whole purpose of bailing them out.
We want them to show a profit.
There's no reason to stay in business if you're not profiting from it.
So that's a healthy rebound, and rather than take the tack, look our bailout worked, you demonize them because the purpose of this is it's just the latest salvo on the private sector, and it's to create chaos among the middle class and get them to hate as many of the institutions in the private sector as possible.
Hate the banks, hate Wall Street, hate whoever has more than you do, paint them as insensitive, getting rich while you're unemployed, uh, and it's it's all designed to get uh people comfortable with the idea that Obama and the government would be more fair and more just if they just seize control and ran these institutions themselves.
It's frightening and it is genuinely scary.
Now there are a bunch of firms that got bailouts who have not paid them back, not even close.
General Motors, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mack.
In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, Barney Frank Bragg the other day have now essentially been taken over uh as as government entities.
They have the cap on the uh amount of money that they can be in debt was raised to 11 billion dollars.
The amount of money that people that work there, the six million dollars of salary, no problem.
Daniel Mud got ten million dollars for screwing up and leaving.
Fannie Mae.
So the the institutions that took big bailout money and haven't paid it back.
Obama owns the car companies, so he's not going to tax himself.
And he owns GMAC and Freddie Mac.
And he's also in charge now.
There is there is now essentially a single payer in student loans as of this year.
The government is the only place you go to get a student loan.
So inch by inch the private sector's being taken over, and you can just follow the Linsky tactics and rules for radicals to find out how it's being done.
And it has to happen.
Remember now, you can't have, as Hillary Clinton quoted Alinsky, you cannot have phrase.
I'm having a mental block here on one word.
It's it's you need basically you need an enemy, but uh yeah, you need a bull Connor, but it's what it's uh it can't be for.
Hang on, I'll find it here.
Put it somewhere.
Um I'll find it.
I'll find it.
But you need a demon, you need an enemy.
You uh oh, before you get consensus, you need polarization.
You have to divide people.
This is this is the essential element to Alinskyiteism.
You have to divide people, and you have to keep them so upset, so and and despondent, the more they think that there's no hope, the more they think that there's no chance for a job, the more that look there was just a story yesterday.
People think the opportunity to get rich no longer exists in the country.
This is by design.
Obama wants people to think this way because that opens the floodgates, it opens the doors to revamping the system.
At some point, Obama's gonna say, it almost probably will use these exact words.
He is going to say Capitalism hasn't worked.
The old ways have been shown not to work.
It's time for a new direction.
He may not use the word capitalism, but the whole point, if you want to remake a country, remake a culture, remake a society, it takes time at your first step, you have to make the citizenry absolutely miserable.
You have to make the people of the country think that there is no hope.
You have to convince them that the system in which they're living will never succeed, will never help them, that the system in which they live is rigged against them.
That's how you make them open for change.
So this business today of coming out and announcing a punitive tax on banks is just the next incremental step in forcing as many Americans as possible to essentially give up on the last two hundred years of America and accept a transformation to a socialist or fascist type of uh probably more likely fascist, private ownership but government directed.
All right, a quick timeout.
And we'll be back after this.
Your phone calls, as I promised, are coming up.
Now, one more thing here, then we'll go to the phones.
Compare uh, ladies and gentlemen, Wall Street to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Knack both had their cap removed on how many failing mortgages they can hold to above four hundred billion dollars, meaning it's still on the government take.
The cap for both was raised 11 billion dollars, meaning there are still hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless mortgages out the subprime mortgage crisis is still with us.
And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack have been uh have have been uh had their cap raised so they can increase the number of failing mortgages they can hold.
Their CEOs can get paid upwards of six million dollars, and you'll never see Obama go on television to bitch about it.
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack are part of the government now.
There's not even any pretense that there's a private sector component to either of these.
Fanny and Freddie have not returned a dime of bailout money.
Ex-CEO Daniel Mudd, like I mentioned, got ten million dollars for being part of the mortgage debacle.
GM Chrysler, Ditto.
They haven't paid back anything.
Their profits, such as they are, are not being taxed.
They are not being targeted, they're not being demonized.
Only the banks, only Wall Street, only conservatives.
And now to the phones.
This is uh anonymous from somewhere in South Missouri.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Uh just I am a school superintendent, and back in the fall, our all the schools in the state were required, of course, to submit reports on jobs, either created or preserved by stimulus money.
And when we submitted that report, uh probably very truthfully entered zero because we hadn't hired anyone specifically because of that money, and we wouldn't we had no intentions of laying anyone off if we hadn't received money.
How much how much money did you get?
Uh well, it it's hard to say exactly because the state of Missouri uh incorporated some stimulus money into basically replacing school funding.
So see that this let me let me jump in here because this is this is mentioned this yesterday.
Stimulus money went to states.
Stimulus money went to states, and then the states could use it however they wished.
Uh they could pay down their own state deficits, uh, budget deficits, uh, do anything with it they wanted.
In this case, they gave some amount to a local school district.
Uh, and then the district here is represented by the superintendent had to report how many jobs were saved or created with the stimulus money that you got.
Okay, so continue the story.
Uh we submitted the report and said and entered zero.
That we had not created or preserved any jobs uh because we had no intention of laying anyone off or anything.
And we received notice uh day or two later after submitting the report that we were not allowed to submit zero, that we had to uh who was telling you this?
This came from Jefferson City.
Yes, see, capital of Missouri.
So as state capital, governor, some of some bureaucracy there say no, you can't report zero.
So you had to lie.
You basically had to lie.
You had you had to say you've created or saved X number of jobs.
You had to plug some numbers in there.
Right.
What'd you do?
Uh we put numbers in.
You lied.
Well, uh I guess you could you could put it that way, I guess.
I mean, one of your intentions.
I'm not being accusatory here.
You were forced to lie.
You were forced to lie in order to get the money.
The money was already was already coming.
It came as part of our part of our regular formula, the formula that the state uses to provide money to measure.
Oh, okay.
Okay, that's even better.
Even better.
So they just took stimulus money and gave it to school districts to free up spending in somewhere else in the budget that they that they wanted to use.
Uh hardly shovel ready jobs, hardly based on employment.
What numbers did you plug in?
I've got twenty-five seconds.
Uh, I don't remember exactly.
It was back in the fall.
Uh we used I think maybe ten or fifteen, uh a small number, but it would just it kind of flew all over me that I was not allowed to report zero.
Interesting.
I appreciate your call, Mr. Anonymous.
Not allowed to report zero, not allowed to report the truth.
Hand report ten or fifteen.
If it happened once, what are the odds it happened all over the place?
Mambo number five.
We'll big.
In the El Rush Ball bumper rotation.
I am the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned Maharashi.
Our telephone number is 800 282-2882.
As if on cue from the UK guardian, a liberal rag.
U.S. cult of greed is now a global environmental threat.
I'm I'm gonna read this story, or excerpts of it, and I'm I want you to understand something as I read this to you.
This is exactly what President Obama believes.
This is exactly what all leftists, wherever you find them in the world believe.
This is what all leftists are taught.
From the earliest moments they start school all the way up to institutions of higher learning.
What you're going to hear here is exactly what Obama believes.
The average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, fueling a global culture of excess that is emerging as the biggest threat to the planet, according to a report published today in its annual report, the World Watch Institute, which is a fabulously well left-wing, I mean, just full-fledged liberal think tank, says the cult of consumption and greed.
We have ten percent, seventeen percent unemployment in this country.
The cult of consumption and greed could wipe out any gains from government action on climate change or a shift to a clean energy economy.
Do you understand the magnitude of that claim?
The cult of consumption and greed in the U.S. could wipe out any gains from government action on climate change.
Oh, yes, the good, trustworthy and decent government doing all the most wonderful and right things to control climate change, but the cult of consumption and greed could wipe on the part of the American citizen, could wipe out all the good government can do, could also wipe out any shift to a clean energy economy.
Eric Asadurian, the project director who led a team of 35 behind the report, said this until we recognize that our environmental problems from climate change to deforestation to species loss are driven by unsustainable habits.
We will not be able to solve the ecological crises that threaten to wash over civilization.
The world's population is burning through the planet's resources at a reckless rate.
In the last decade, consumption of goods and services rose 28%.
To 30.5 trillion dollars.
The consumer culture is no longer a Mostly American habit, but is spreading across the planet.
Over the last fifty years, excess has been adopted as a symbol of success in developing countries from Brazil to India to China.
China this week overtook the U.S. as the world's top car market.
It's already the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
Such trends were not a natural consequence of economic growth, the report said, but the result of dib deliberate efforts by business to win over consumers.
Products such as the hamburger and bottled water are now commonplace.
As though that's a sin.
The average Western family spends more on their pet than is spent by a human in Bangladesh.
The report did not uh did note encouraging signs of a shift away from the high spend culture.
It said school meals programs marked greater effort to encourage healthier eating habits among children.
At current rates of consumption, the world needs to erect 24 wet turbines an hour, windmills, to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuel.
The president of the World Watch Institute, Christopher Flavin, in the preface said, as the world struggles to recover from the most serious global economic crisis since the Great Depression, we have an unprecedented opportunity to turn away from consumerism.
So again, it's America's fault.
We are stealing the world's resources.
We're using far more than our share.
We're destroying the climate.
We are creating pollution.
We're depleting the earth of its resources.
And this is been the case since Paul Ehrlich came out with the population bomb.
Every prediction in it false did not come true.
But this is part and parcel of what President Obama believes.
He believes this country is similarly guilty to these worldwatchs.
He's a leftist.
I mean it does.
This is what he was taught.
This is what it is.
This is why he's cutting this economy down to size.
Jerry in Glendale, West Virginia, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush Limbaugh.
How are you doing?
Fine and dandy, sir.
Thank you.
I've got a question for you.
The island of Espaniola in the uh Caribbean.
It has two uh countries on it.
One side is uh the Dominican Republic, the other side Haiti.
Haiti had an earthquake the other day that has devastated it and killed many people.
Why do we not hear anything from the other side of the island?
The Dominican Republic.
In fact, the many reporters are staying in Santo Domingo for uh having accommodations.
Uh they fly back and forth to report on the horrible news in Haiti.
I'm not a geologist.
I I do not know why on the same island such a massive 7.0 earthquake uh only damaged Port au Prince and other parts of Haiti.
I what one thing that you you could speculate on is that there don't appear to have been too many building codes in Haiti.
It doesn't appear that construction there was worth much.
Uh and probably you have a little bit better construction building codes and and uh and and techniques being used in the in the Dominican, but I beyond that I couldn't I I could only guess.
But I'm sure we have we have geologists in this audience.
We have people who will know this.
And we'll get the answer to that before this program is over.
It is it is interesting.
Uh I haven't heard of any damage in the Dominican have you?
Is anybody reporting on any there?
I haven't uh uh plenty of aftershocks.
You know, that the the island of Hispannolia is uh close to a lot of places.
I mean, you would think that there was a tsunami watch at first that was canceled.
So it is an interesting question.
I don't think it's all building codes.
It's got to be something about the topography, the the geography.
There's a there's a huge mountain range that separates the two countries right on the border.
And I don't know if that has anything to do with it.
But that huge mountain range, you know, if if there's ever, for example, a cat five or cat four hurricane headed our way, and if it's if it it you want it to hit that mountain range because the altitude of the range is so high it can it can tear down the eyewall of a of a hurricane.
Now, you know, altitude uh is the uh is one of the big enemies of the hurricane eye.
And the the you know the falling pressure up there and then the less air pressures that it's I don't know why, I just know that it's true because the uh meteorologists that I've studied have have uh have mentioned this.
And I've witnessed it once.
There was a hurricane that wicked weakened significantly.
It wreaked havoc in the Dominican, got to that mountain range, and just the eye fell apart.
It reformed after it came off the other side, after came off of Haiti, but it never regained the full fledged strength that it hit the Dominican with.
Here's Bill in Parkland, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Russia, it is a pleasure to finally speak with you.
I have to tell you, your opening monologue today was absolutely stunning.
Um I've been listening to you since you've been on radio.
I forgot what I said.
I never in the past.
What did I say?
What did I open with?
It was stunning.
I mean, you went through a you know the whole economic reasons.
Oh, yeah.
And that brings us back to your four pillars, you know, the media, education, science, government, that the liberals have taken control of.
The four corners of deceit.
The four corners of deceit.
Perfect.
Liberals demonized everything.
That's so true.
Finally today, and uh Mr. Snared Lee was kind enough to put me on the air.
The banks are uh coming back at Congress and saying, hey, wait a second.
It was Alan Greenspan who two times put this country in a state of mania, if you remember, the stock market crash of 2000 was Greenspan's lack of acting on those famous words.
What were they in December 1996 irrational exuberance?
You betcha.
And when it really came to irrational exuberance, he sat with his thumbs.
I'm not going to say any more, and he did nothing.
And Obama says today, business as usual.
That's code for Goldman Sachs.
So everything comes out of Goldman Sachs, all these bankers, all these things, all this.
But the main point today is the drive-bys are starting to look at Alan Greenspan.
This is what I do for a living.
I sit home with my wife and we trade stocks.
We were handed a twenty-one year gift last year.
Well when everybody was throwing things out of the, you know, their stocks out the door, they were throwing them into our hands.
Although we were caught in it as well, and it nearly bankrupted our family, but we were lucky enough to have had some cash aside to buy up these companies, pennies on the dollar.
Now, when we talk about companies that have failed, what about the company that took no money?
Ford Motor Company.
It went to a dollar.
Well, you know, that's that's that is uh uh another excellent point.
Even financial institutions that took no TARP money are subject to this tax.
Even your you are you are exactly right.
And the Obama-owned or operated companies that also took bailout money who paid none of it back, are not going to be taxed.
Brief time out, my friends.
We shall return.
Who's next on this program?
Where are we going?
We're uh Cookville, Texas.
And Jerry, great to uh sorry, Cookville, Tennessee, and you're next, Jerry.
Great to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh it's great to be on.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I heard earlier today that the uh that the president Obama was going to ask former president, George W. Bush, if he would lead um, I guess um, I don't know if it'd be a distribution or uh uh uh something to help with the uh with the relief program in in Haiti.
And I'm thinking, well, why would he do this since he blamed him for all the uh disaster in Katrina down in New Orleans?
Why would he even think about doing this unless if something goes wrong?
Well, he can blame Bush again.
Well, no.
No, there's two things here.
He can show bipartisanship.
Clinton and the Bush uh down there are working in tandem.
Uh and at the same time, while Bush is down there, Obama will be able to say, look at our response to what happened in Haiti, as opposed to the response in we're we're gonna hear that.
We are gonna hear that before this is all over.
And it will we will hear it orchestrated by somebody in the state-run media that we'll get a story.
It won't be long.
Marveling at how quickly Obama mobilized an entire world and the United Nations to start immediate relief.
Why that day, U.S. soldiers, U.S. jets and material and supply arrived.
And it won't be long.
Could be by the end of the day.
Cable shows tonight, certainly by tomorrow.
We're going to get stories about how rapidly the Obama administration, how thoroughly competent they were.
And having Bush out there for this comparison to how slow Katrina was, is just going to personalize it all even more.
I have no doubt that Bush is being used here by Obama for a multitude of purposes.
David in Austin, Texas, hello, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Well, megadiddos rush, mega fifteen year diddos.
Thank you.
Rush, I think we need to s inject a little common sense into this whole health care debate.
You know, I've been reading Reagan lately and just been brought to uh to my senses again that sure health care costs are rising.
I mean, why are they rising?
I mean, fifty years ago, sixty years ago, morphine was the answer to cancer.
Now we've got chemo and we've got teams of doctors, and and none of us want to go back.
Uh the costs are gonna go up, but what we need to do is we need to defeat this monster of a health bill by using a little common sense alternative and bring us back to some individual freedom responsibility, uh what Reagan would do, I think would give us some hope.
I mean, in the past, we've been able to spread health care cost between if you were 20 years old or 90 years old, because there wasn't a huge disparity in health care costs.
Well, now, since there's so much difference between the end of life and the beginning of life, health care cost, we we have some issues, and and I think we need to go back to more age and stage risk pools.
Um the thing at issue is here is that people won't mind if they spread the risk among peers.
But what drives us all crazy is we have to spread the risk among those that are not peers or those that are in much different circumstances than we are.
Um if we were in a small town and we all decided that, you know, we'll we'll share the load of the electricity burden among all the small houses and shop owners in town, everybody would be okay.
But the minute an industrial base moved into town and said, Hey, well, you pay part of my bill, we'd all cry foul.
So I think we've got an amazing spirit in America, and I would love to see more debate, uh, you and and anyone else that could bring to the table how do we share risk appropriately with peers and solve some of this health care problem.
Nobody wants to go back to morphine as a cancer treatment, so what do we do?
Well, uh look the answer to this is simple.
The implementation is complicated as hell.
Uh the answer is you've got to get the government out as much of this as possible.
The government's involvement is what's skewed prices.
Uh and I understand your point about risk pools and and uh what he folks, what he's saying here is that it makes no sense uh to spread the risk equally in the cost of premiums, people age thirty of people age seventy.
The person needs seventy's premium is gonna be much, much higher than the person 30, and the person 30 is gonna end up subsidizing the person 70, which is already happening.
Um but I I I think I think Obama does want to go back to morphine.
Well, I think he does, but I mean the the trick is of course he's trying to steal freedom as he as he does it.
Um but there's uh fundamentally also at play is is that for my health problems or your health problems, you know, if we come to that point to where it's like I'm spending somebody else's money for my health problems, I'm always gonna choose to do that.
Exactly, which is what's happening all across the board here.
In fact, a lot of people don't think they should be spending any of their own money.
Most of Obama's voters don't think they should be spending any of it.
Uh let the bankers today pay for it.
Absolutely.
And of course.
And of course, we we run into this huge mentality that that we are fighting and need to fight desperately against against individual freedom, hope, common sense, talking to people in terms they understand and saying, look, it's not there's no free lunch.
Um let's spread the risk, let's do what's helpful, let's help those that are downtrodden, but let's not try to uh to ride this whole beautiful machine that's been created called the American Experiment all the way into the ground.
Well, but we're already we're already doing that.
We're already there Lawrence Summers back in April may have let the cat out of the bag.
He was explaining somewhere it was public, explaining is chairman of the council of economic advisors, and he was explaining how health care costs are rising faster than any other element of the federal budget, and we got to do something about it, because if we don't, people aren't going to be able to find and then he stopped.
He corrected himself.
Uh but what he meant to say was what he was gonna say is people aren't gonna be able to find doctors.
What this is about, no doctors are gonna be in the Medicare system.
They're all gonna opt out because reimbursements cannot possibly even cover the costs.
They're rising so high.
And now with five hundred billion dollars in Medicare cuts or half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, you want to look at it that way, uh, we're already running the system into the ground.
More and more doctors opting out because they can't make a living on Medicare reimbursements.
So uh it's it's a debacle.
Before we even get to your idea, there have to be there have to be a whole bunch more reforms uh ahead of that that we have to really the focus has to be to return a proper relationship between cost as related to customer and and and and service provider, like it is in every other product or service in the economy.
Okay, the emails are saying, hey, Rush, what do you mean Obama wants to go back to morphine?
Folks, remember when uh he did the ABC Town Hall, and this woman stood up and said, What about my 95-year-old mother that needs a pacemaker?
And uh nope, I don't think with will to live uh we can factor in.
We can't factor that in.
I I think situations like that, uh we make them comfortable and we give them a pill.
Morphine.
We we don't treat them.
We we don't have to give them the money to treat somebody 95 years old.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection