All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
December 9, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limboy.
You know who this is.
You know what we do.
No reason to tell you.
We'll just do it.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushball at eibnet.com.
John Meacham.
I think it's Meacham.
It might be Meekum.
This is the guy who left Newsweek and he's now out there Meacham.
He's now out there at law.
Oh, so he's now an op-ed contributor of the New York Times.
Who would have thought that possible?
Anyway, he's got a piece here, no deficit of courage.
Now, this piece is amazing.
This is very interesting.
Stick with me on this.
Is it in fact 1994-95 all over again?
The atmospherics are certainly familiar.
We have a Democrat president who appears to be tacking to the center to work with Republicans after being battered in the midterms.
Jilted liberals, meanwhile, are left wondering how they could have been so blind about the man they had fallen for so hard.
The Clinton comparison has been much in the air after Obama's deal to extend the Bush era tax cuts.
But a more apt analogy for the present lies in 1990, not 1994, and with George H.W. Bush, not with Bill Clinton.
It was in 1990 that Mr. Bush broke one of the most celebrated promises in modern American politics.
Read my lips, no new taxes, as he put it in 1988, in order to control federal spending.
In the same way that Mr. Obama struck his deal to secure lower tax rates for the middle class and win an extension of unemployment benefits, Mr. Bush gave on tax rates to get pay-as-you-go rules, meaning no further spending could be approved without compensating budget cuts or revenue increases.
It was the beginning of the fiscal discipline that helped create the budget surpluses of the 90s.
Now, I have been alive every year since this.
And for every year since this happened, every bit of credit for a booming economy in the 90s went to Slick Willie.
Now, all of a sudden, pulling out all the stops to help their little man-child over the hump get the credit, they have to go back and for the first time in history, credit George H.W. Bush.
Mr. Meacham in the tank for the Democrats, whether he's writing at Newsweek or the New York Times, giving Bush 41 credit for the 90s.
Since when have these guys ever given credit to anybody but Clinton for that economy?
And if the truth be known, it wasn't even Clinton.
It was Newt Gingrich and the Republican House of 1994 who deserved the credit.
But the point is suddenly that when it's convenient for our man-child president to get credit for something that he's had nothing to do with, go back and cite Bush 41.
Mr. Meacham continues, while Mr. Obama's immediate concern is stimulus and Mr. Bush's was deficit reduction both gave way on issues critical to the true believers within their parties.
For Mr. Bush, it was political death.
He had never been fully trusted by a Reaganite Republican base like Obama, who is unhappy with his sanctimonious left wing.
Mr. Bush was no ideologue.
Also, now Obama's not an ideologue.
Like Mr. Obama, Bush was not...
Obama's not an idiot.
You see how this works now, Floke?
You see how this is all being tied together.
So now all of a sudden, Obama, in the course of 24 hours, says, you know what?
You don't do this tax deal, we're going to have a double-dip recession, which he doesn't believe.
And now he's not an ideologue.
No, Mr. Meacham, Obama is an ideologue.
A committed Marxist ideologue.
His ideology was just beaten on Election Day.
It was just trounced.
That's what's happened here.
Obama wrote in his diary early in his term, I'm not going to be held up by campaign rhetoric.
If the facts change, I hope I'm smart enough to change too.
Mr. Bush privately said that he had no intention of being off in some ideological corner, falling on my sword, keeping the country from moving forward.
That's because Bush 41 never really understood supply-side economics.
He was elected by people who did, though, and then beaten four years later when it's obvious he didn't.
That's true.
He knew that doing what he believed was in the country's best interest would cost him his job in 1992.
I should say could cost him his job.
He might have known that.
But Mr. Meacham, that was 20 years ago.
Have you or anybody else in the drive-by media ever written that Bush 41 did what was in the country's best interest?
Did you ever say that in 1992?
Have you ever credited Bush 41 for anything?
No.
No.
All that credit went to Clinton, except now, when they have to draw some...
They don't want to draw an analogy to Clinton.
They just don't.
So they got to go to Bush 41.
But in real time, Mr. Meacham writes, aware of the consequences, Bush made the best of the world as he found it.
After his election loss to Clinton, Bush wrote to Nicholas Brady, his Treasury Secretary, to budget deal would have helped if the economy had strongly recovered, but it didn't.
And I was the read-my-lips liar over and over again.
I heard it.
It killed us.
So Meacham says, if you play out the 1990 analogy, Mr. Obama may be a one-term president.
Mr. Clinton won re-election because of his political gifts and the improving economy and because he was fortunate in his congressional foes.
Bush did not have these advantages.
Let me translate this for you.
Clinton's congressional foes were right, Gingrich and Du Bois.
And that's what made the economy boom.
Bush 41's congressional foes were wrong, Tom Foley.
And that's what hurt the economy.
And let's not forget about Ross Perot in here in terms of the presidential race in 1992.
So the analogy falls apart, but man, it's amazing that they're trying to make it.
It is too soon to tell what will confront Mr. Obama.
If his bill, with its middle-class tax benefits, stimulates the economy, then his, see, there aren't any new middle-class tax benefits except a one-year, 2% reduction in the payroll tax.
That's it.
One year.
See, now they're calling this a stimulus.
If this bill, with its middle-class benefits, stimulates the economy, then his compromise on the liberal article of faith may one day rank with Mr. Bush's courage under conservative fire.
So here you have drive-by stenographer John Meacham suddenly in love with Bush 41.
What do you bet he's working on a book?
What do you bet he's working on a book?
Oh, look, look here at the end.
John Meacham, author most recently of American Lion, Andrew Jackson, is at work on a biography of George H.W. Bush.
Oh, look, he is.
He is writing a book on George H.W. Bush.
I did not know that.
I had not read all the way to the end.
I'm not, I'm snurdily.
I'm telling you, I did not.
I said, maybe he's writing a book.
And I read just two paragraphs down.
I was reading this word to I was reading this for the first time as I read it to you.
I'd read the headline in the first paragraph as part of show prep, and I put it somewhere in a stack based, and I'm reading this and I'm reading this.
And suddenly in love with Bush 41, he is.
He's at work on a biography of George H.W. Bush.
Just got access.
He just got access.
Well, let's go to the audio sound bites.
Man, that's see, I'm telling, folks, I mean, not to pat myself on the back.
I'm telling you this to guide you in the future and to reassure you.
I know these people.
I know how they think.
I know what they're going to do before they know they're going to do it.
I know what they do before they do it.
I know these people.
Now I'm being told the Bush family is said to be cooperating with Meacham for his biography.
So he needs to keep them happy.
So Bush 41, I'll bet the whole family tickle pink all of a sudden finally.
George H.W. Bush getting credit for something.
And look who's doing it.
Mainstream media.
Just see Mr. Limboy.
It just confirms our instincts to be nice to these people.
Eventually, I guarantee you.
Man.
Folk, I really did not know.
I did not know I'm reading this that he was writing a book on H.W. Bush.
I saw that at the end of this piece, you know, in the slug line.
And it's fun.
It's fun being right like this.
It's just audio sound bites.
Okay.
Tuesday afternoon in Washington.
This is Obama.
When the Recovery Act passed, we were looking at a potential Great Depression.
And we might have seen unemployment go up to 15%, 20%.
We don't know.
In combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the Federal Reserve did, that's behind us now.
We don't have the danger of a double-dip recession.
Tuesday, folks, Tuesday, two days ago at the White House, our president, Imam Obama, says we don't have a danger of a double-dip recession because we passed the stimulus.
And in the process, I didn't know this, we staved off 15 to 20% unemployment.
But two days ago, look, there's Mort Vuckerman up there on CNBC.
Anyway, good to Thea.
Mort.
We don't have the danger of a double-dip recession.
Mr. Limbaugh, we heard you.
Why do you keep repeating it?
Because I want to make sure everybody understands this.
Just two days ago, Obama said, we don't have the danger of a double-dip recession.
Today, the headline is the exact opposite.
White House Warren's tax defeat could trigger new recession.
And that's actually was from last night.
So Tuesday, no way, no double-dip recession.
Yesterday, White House Warren's tax defeat could trigger a new recession.
I'm just telling you this because the original theory that I have here, this is all to set up Obama as a winner in 2012, no matter what happens with the economy.
Now, here's Mary Summers this morning on Squawk on the Street on CNBC.
Erin Burnett, the street sweetie, they still call her that.
She talking to Summers.
She says, you've been saying it's crucial to get this deal passed or it would increase the risk of a double-dip recession.
Do you think this deal is really done or could this end up sort of like TARP did, where it was quote unquote done and blew up and sent the market into disarray?
I think the right thing is going to happen here.
You know, if you add it up, the payroll tax, holiday, the extension of unemployment insurance, the expensing of business investment, the continuation of the Bush middle class tax cuts.
This is a program that really is going to give the economy a substantial shot in the arm at a time when that's what we need.
There's obviously been uncertainty about the economy, particularly with what happens in Europe, and it's the right time to reduce uncertainty and give the economy a major shot in the arm.
And that's what this bill will do.
It's an important compromise, and I expect we'll see it in law before Christmas.
It's amazing what an election will do.
Whether these guys, they wouldn't admit this up till November 2nd.
You think anybody in this regime would have said anything like this?
First place, they wouldn't talk about tax cuts.
There were no such, there wouldn't.
There were tax holidays on payroll taxes, business expensing.
No, they weren't going to do any of that.
That was fault for the rich.
That was Reaganism.
That was supply side.
That was a problem.
That's what created the problem.
Now, this, we could logically say, if you think this now, why didn't you think it six months ago?
Why didn't you think this when you assumed office?
Why didn't you put this kind of thinking into practice?
Why didn't you implement policy based on this kind of thinking?
If you'd done that, we wouldn't be where we are now.
Okay.
So on Tuesday, Obama says there won't be a double-dip recession.
Yesterday, Summers says there will be.
Today, Obama says there will be.
After saying there won't be on Tuesday.
Austin Goolsby, also known as Ichabod Crane, this morning on the Fox News channel, America's Newsroom, during a discussion of the tax rate compromise, Bill Hemmer said, I don't understand the sudden conversion at the White House on this double-dip recession business.
What explains that, Ichabod?
The sudden conversion.
Look, there hadn't been any conversion.
President doesn't think extending high-income tax cuts will work.
But I think the thing that changed is that the president was able to negotiate substantial amounts to go to the kind of priorities that he does think will work, the middle-income tax cuts, the Obama tax cuts for the middle class, not just the Bush ones, the money for a payroll tax to go to workers, money for investment incentives for companies to build factories here, as well as education credits and that kind of thing.
And so offered with a deal like that, I think everybody's got to be forward because ultimately I think that's what's best for the economy.
There aren't any tax cuts in this.
There aren't any stimulative tax cuts in this.
So the current tax rates are a major shot in the arm, but in two years they won't be.
And they should never have been passed 10 years ago anyway.
They should never have been passed.
Now for two years, they're going to be a great stimulus.
And then after that, they stop being a stimulus.
And if we don't do it, it's going to be a double-dip recession.
Whereas Tuesday, it wasn't going to be.
It was impossible to have a double-dip recession.
The next day, we better do this, Obama says, we have a double-dip recession.
So the current tax rates are a huge shot in the arm, which they're not.
They're not stimulative.
In two years, they won't be, but they should have never been passed 10 years ago in the first place.
You follow?
We should have never done them.
They're going to be great the next two years.
And then we're going to get rid of them.
They should have never been done in the first place.
We'll be back.
Hey, Mr. Sturdley, would you check something for me?
Somebody has just died.
They got Geraldo here as on Megan Kelly at her show.
It's somebody's always dead when Geraldo shows up.
Find out who died.
Please, he's a grim reaper.
I mean, something's always, some horrible death has always happened when they bring him up.
All right, we're going to start with Vicki in Brooksville, Kentucky.
You're first today on the EIB Network on the Phones.
Hi.
Hi, this is truly an honor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Zundbaugh.
You bet.
I have a question because I live in Littoralville.
I've lived there since I had my first child.
He's 37 now.
And I have a question about how on earth can money that isn't going, because the tax rates have been in the same for 10 years, that is not going to the government and is going to continue to not go to the government, add to the debt.
And how can an estate tax that is now zero, that is going to go up to 35%, going to add to the deficit?
I swear to God, this is driving me crazy.
Where are you hearing these two facts?
I'm hearing them from the politicians that are yakking their heads off.
Okay, what's the first one they're saying?
That if we pass these continuations of these credit rates, that it's going to add to the deficit in the debt.
How can that be?
They're not getting money.
They're going to continue to not getting to get money.
So how on earth is it?
It's again.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
It's again, it's baseline budgeting.
It's how you set the table.
Remember, these people for the whole year have been expecting tax rates to go up.
They have already been spending that money.
So now the tax rates are going to be the same.
They're looking at this as a cut, therefore costing the government money.
This is insane.
If I'm working and I think I might get a raise on January 1st, I don't start spending the money.
Let me ask you a question.
Yes, sir.
And I'm not going to be able to ask it in the remaining 10 seconds I have.
So can you hold on during the day?
I certainly will.
Thank you.
I just have a question for you.
Don't go away.
We'll be back.
We'll continue right after this.
All right, so you think it's insane what they are saying, Vicki, about no changes in the tax revenue whatsoever.
So how can that add to the debt, right?
Exactly.
You don't understand.
It's nuts.
Well, do you understand when I tell you that it's the way they've set the table?
They were counting on a tax increase.
Well, I understand.
And now they're not getting a tax increase.
So in their mind, there's less revenue coming in.
It's going to hurt the deficit.
So here's my question.
Am I crazy or are they crazy?
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
They're crazy, but.
Thank you.
All right.
Now, but let me ask you a question.
Okay.
First off, do you do the grocery shopping in your family?
Oh, my God, yes.
All right.
Have you ever looked at a newspaper or seen an ad for a product on television that you don't need, but because it's on sale, you go buy a bunch of it anyway?
Depending on what it is, yes.
Okay, it's the same thing at work here, and you've told yourself that you saved a lot of money, even though you would have never spent the money in the first place unless there was a sale.
That's what they're telling them.
No, no, I'm not putting you down.
I want you to try to get your arms around this.
Let me give you a product.
You're sitting there minding your own business, and here comes an ad for potatoes.
And you see potatoes, which are normally, I'm just pick a price here of $1.50 a pound, are now $1 a pound.
You don't need any, but you can't pass up that price.
So you go buy a couple pounds.
That's true.
And you can go back up, and I know that for a fact.
Okay.
So you've just told yourself you sold a lot of money.
Saved a lot of money, right?
Correct.
But you didn't.
You spent money you would have otherwise never spent because you don't need the potatoes.
You only bought them because they're on sale.
So you're actually out the money, and you're telling yourself you saved a bunch.
This is how our government baseline budgeting works.
They have a budget that automatically triggers every item going up 8 to 10% every year.
And if it only goes up 5%, they claim that their budget's been cut, even though they got a 5% increase.
You have just spent money that you weren't going to spend.
But because there was a sale, you've told yourself you saved money.
These guys are telling themselves they've been planning on a tax increase, therefore more money.
But there never was a tax increase.
It never became law.
But now there definitely isn't going to be one.
They claim the deficit's going to be hurt because they're not going to get what they never were going to get.
Uh-huh.
So even if, even if for the past 10 years, it's been the same and it's going to continue being the same in their re-small minds, they believe that that actually is going to be a debt.
They do.
And because for two reasons.
A, it's in their DNA.
They believe that every tax cut costs the government money.
I see.
They are demonstrably wrong about it.
So Anything that looks to them like a tax cut, which tax rates staying the same after they thought they were going up, that constitutes to them a cut.
Therefore, they think they're getting screwed with less money.
And that also includes the estate tax, which is zero, that's going to go up to 35%.
Well, they're happy about that.
It's already been taxed.
They consider that because it's not going up to whatever they want, therefore.
Right, because it used to be added to the deficit.
See, it used to be 55.
Now it's going from zero to 35.
They don't look at that as an increase.
They look at that as a cut.
Oh, my God.
These people are nuts.
Well, this is how this is day-to-day.
This is how the federal budget gets put together every year.
Well, no wonder we're in such a freaking mess.
Exactly.
Exactly right.
Now, I'm sure you can remember every year a budget is presented by, let's say, George W. Bush, and they said it's DOA.
Look at all the budget cuts in here.
Right.
And you looked at it and said, well, there aren't any cuts because the budget's bigger this year than it was last year.
There aren't any cuts.
Exactly.
They think there are because let's say that the Department of Education was scheduled to get a 10% increase and Bush's new budget says, no, we're only going to spend 7% more.
They think they've got a cut of 3%.
So they run it on and say he cut our budget.
So they present this to the public in a propaganda style.
And the media can persuade the public to believe this crap.
And the media helps it along because they'll do it with things like the school lunch program for kids.
That's why when they started this whole entire conversation, even Fox News, which I only watch Fox News, kept saying that this was going to cost $900 billion.
And I'm thinking, this isn't going to cost anything because nothing's changing.
I don't get it.
They're exactly right.
I do that.
It's going to cost $900 billion for two reasons.
They say it politically and also because they're not going to get the money.
Here's what I would say about costing.
I think we need to get away with this whole theory, all of this language, that tax cuts cost the government money.
Who the hell are they?
What right?
Exactly.
How come tax increases never cost us?
It's our money.
If they get less of it, it's just like we are.
It's up to them to deal with it.
And that's, I have the biggest beast in the world with the Republicans that are constantly just going along with this.
Why can't they change this conversation?
Because they're on defense.
They don't like it being said that they're starving kids.
Oh, my God.
This is crazy.
No, you know, we're going to lose if they continue to have this conversation on their terms instead of dealing with reality.
Reality is a whole lot different than what they're talking about.
That's right.
And that's why this program is here.
And that is why I have been really probably over dwelling on this today, but it's crucial.
And when I hear Obama start talking about, if we don't do this, we're going to have a double dip recession.
Well, if we don't do what, we're not changing anything.
There's no change.
There are no tax cuts.
There's a it's this minuscule 2%.
I'm not opposed to it.
Don't misunderstand, but just one year.
And it's a 2% reduction, not an elimination of the payroll tax.
So it's going to amount to some, but nothing anybody can plan on.
It's just one year.
It's just in there so that the regime can say they cut taxes.
But until they start cutting marginal income tax rates, there's nothing in here that's going to stimulate economic growth.
And this Obama knows.
Remember now, folks, the last thing he wants is for this to work.
Here you are, a Marxist socialist, just sitting here in the White House, and at the end of two years, you have to say, you know what, I was wrong.
The supply-side theory actually does work.
Well, it isn't going to work.
Keeping the same tax rates if they haven't stimulated an economy.
See, they've already done the stimulation.
When Bush cut these taxes in 2001 and 2003, the stimulation, the stimulus took place within three years.
To stimulate again, you'd have to have more cuts now.
The stimulus has already occurred.
So it's now embedded.
It's part of the daily economic structure.
There won't be any stimulus here, this Obama knows.
So in two years, he can say, I tried it.
I, you know, interested bipartisanship, get along with the other guys.
They won the election, blah, blah, blah.
I'm a good guy.
I tried it their way.
And it just didn't work.
And in two years, Obama would love to be able to call a press conference where he officially buries the notion of supply side because he tried it for two years.
It didn't work.
When he didn't try it.
That's the risk here.
And I hear our guys running around saying the Democrat Party's dead.
I've got people writing me emails that Rushi's not that smart.
Now, wait a second.
All you people continually writing me about how we're always one step behind the Democrats that are always strategically one step ahead of us, I give you an example of that.
He's not that smart.
Okay, maybe he isn't.
I don't know, but somebody's got this idea because I'm telling you on Tuesday, he says there's no way there's going to be a double-dip recession with current policy.
The next day, he says we run the risk of a double-dip recession if we don't do this tax rate extension.
So something's going on here.
If these guys, somebody's pulling him along if it's not him.
Frankly, I don't care who it is.
I just know what's happening.
I listened to him say so.
Not that hard to figure out.
Hey, we're back, and we go to the audio soundbites as we continue to listen to disgruntled Democrats and others in the administration try to spleen themselves.
Back now to Ichabod Crane.
This is Austin Goolsby this morning on Fox News channel American Newsroom talking to Bill Hemmer.
And Hemmer said, do you agree with Larry Summers that we would be headed for a double dip recession if his tax cuts were not extended?
I try to stay out of the prediction business, but I don't think there's any doubt by private forecasters or us internally that if you let the middle-income tax cuts expire and ordinary Americans see their taxes go up $3,000, $4,000 starting January 1st, that would be a big blow to the economy.
You know Peter Orzak, a former colleague of yours there in Washington, six months ago he was talking about extending the tax cuts for everyone.
Was Peter Orzak right?
Well, he did call for a two-year extension of both.
Well, I guess that's the answer.
We don't know what else he said there, but I just want to remind you, on Tuesday, Obama said there's no way we're going to have a double-dip recession.
No way.
We've already taken steps to prevent that.
Then Summers comes out and says, if we don't extend the rates, we're going to have a double-dip recession.
And Obama comes out and says, if we don't extend the rates, we're going to have a double-dip recession.
And here's Goolsby saying, well, yeah, the internal, external forecasters right on money.
We're going to have one if we don't do this.
And the guy twisting in the wind is Obama.
He's the only one that's contradicted himself.
Gary Ackerman.
This is a New York congressman who's not happy.
Late yesterday afternoon on Mess NBC, during a discussion about the tax rate compromise, the host, Daryl Radigan, said, what's about to happen here?
Everybody's going to get an earful.
I think the vice president is going to make the strongest case he can, and I think he's going to be able to gauge the intensity of the members of the Democratic caucus who are saying, why should we take this vote?
This isn't the DREAM Act.
This is the Republican Wet Tream Act.
They get the Democrats to add to the deficit.
They get all the benefits for their wealthiest friends in America to pay them off for their huge contributions that they made during the campaign and got an exemption from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The whole thing is an absolute absurdity.
So, see, this guy's typical of the left.
He's just livid.
They get the Democrats to add to the deficit.
They get all the benefits for their wealthiest friends.
Meanwhile, nothing changes.
It's what Vicki was just asking about.
How can they say this?
Because they're partisan ideologue Marxists.
And they're crazy.
They're stupid.
Nothing changes.
And Ackerman's got himself tied into a knot.
He's like a pretzel out there.
Here's James Carville.
Last night, CNN's John King USA.
Question, if the liberals are so mad at him, have the conservatives overplayed this?
This guy, Obama's so far left?
This guy's a socialist.
This guy's way out there.
The people who seem most mad at him are the people on the left.
There's a strategy here.
If there's a strategy, why is it?
It's just, and by the way, the single biggest failed economic policy in history, the Bush tax cuts.
Why are we extending something that demonstratively didn't work, that didn't grow incomes, that left us with our cupboard bad, that exploded the dust?
It doesn't give us $4 trillion more.
That's what I don't understand.
So Carville's sticking with the talking point the Democrats have banked on for 10 years, that the Bush tax cuts are the worst thing ever.
Now the regime's come along and basically said the current tax rates are going to be a major shot in the arm, but only for two years, and they shouldn't have been passed 10 years ago in the first place.
I mean, that's the regime's position.
And, you know, Carville, somebody who does have his head screwed on right most of the time, is listening to this and pulling out what little hair he's got left saying, it doesn't make any sense out there.
The Bush tax cuts destroyed every cupboard's a bear.
Again, folks, the current tax rates, they say a major shot in the arm.
In two years, they're not going to be because you've got to get rid of them then.
And they should have never been passed 10 years ago in the first place.
Anthony Weiner was on Megan Kelly's show, Fox, yesterday, and literally had a meltdown.
They're talking about the estate tax.
Megan Kelly said on the estate tax argument from the other side is it's a morally corrupt tax that if I work all my life and I pay my taxes on my income, then I die, and I want to pass on what would be great if it were a $5 million estate to my kids.
Why should I pay the government again?
Why should there be 35%, 45%, 55% tax on my death?
You aren't paying anything in that case because you'll be dead.
Well, the estate is, and that's less for my children.
Well, but the only question is, look.
No, no, you're not answering my question.
Well, how is that fair?
Megan, Megan, Megan, you're going to have to let me answer the question.
We're going to have a conversation that gets us anywhere.
Okay, okay, go ahead then.
The only question here is not whether or not there should be a tax on that.
The question is where the limits should be and how much should be.
I'll ask the question you're not answering.
Just tell me how is it fair.
Ready?
I am.
So the question is, at what level should it be taxed?
Some people around here think it should be higher.
Some people should be at lower.
This deal would basically say that for people who inherit money, that money gets taxed at a lower rate than if they worked 70 hours to earn it.
That's just not fair.
And I don't have time to play the final cut, but basically, he well, he makes the point here that everything you own is the property of the government.
We'll play that bite for you when we have time.
Be right back after this.
Don't go away.
They earn the money if they want to pass it on to their children.
Why can't they?
No, they did not tax it.
They didn't earn the money.
Is it not double taxation?
Those people will be dead.
The only people we're talking about are people who inherit money.
Yes, some people get very lucky, very lucky at the casino.
Should we tax that at a lower rate than if you worked hard and earned it?
Well, it's different from double taxation where one person earns it and pays taxes on it.
I see a distinction between your analogy and the question I raised.
In any event, I appreciate it.
It's unearned income, Megan.
That's the bottom line.
If you say so.
Now, I got to leave it at that.
So because you're dead, you can't be said to have earned the money because you're dead.
That's his position.
▲
Export Selection