All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:03
April 18, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
Say, folks, uh, I don't know if you've heard about this or not.
I just found out about it.
They are turning.
They're turning Bill Clinton's childhood home into a shrine.
Have you heard about that, Snerdley?
Now I'm wondering if the Clintons are doing this just to tweak Obama, you know, childhood home.
I'm one, I'm wondering.
I'm one of Hot Springs or Little Rock.
And I wonder if Trump is maybe financing it.
Do you hear what Trump said over the weekend about Mitt Romney?
Trump was down here.
I when we spoke to him on Friday, I thought he was in New York, but he was here.
I and he went down, I guess it was Boca, the having a speech on Saturday, and he said, Romney's not rich enough.
Mitt Romney's not rich enough.
And the New York Post has a picture of Trump making the speech, and they've got one of these uh what they do of me, these pictures showing me with this almost angry grimace on my face with that caption, Trump says Romney not rich enough.
Anyway, uh what a we got a it there's a lot of stuff like that in the stacks of stuff here today to get us rolling.
Brand new week of broadcast excellence, Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God.
We got the audio of this coming up later.
Sarah Palin.
And I'm paraphrasing here, Sarah Palin said that the GOP leadership needs to learn how to fight like a girl.
Now that's a great line.
That is that is a great line.
And the way she meant it, obviously certainly true.
But you know the Republican leadership in the house.
Um you imagine what they they probably feel like sane people who have been mistakenly committed to a lunatic asylum.
You know, have you ever just nothing to them?
I mean, they need all the sport they can get.
They're looking evil in the face uh every day every day, and and they're just and they've got Sarah Payne, you guys need to learn how to fight like girls.
You know, and they're wondering if while they weren't looking, the guy's little white coats came and picked them up over the weekend, took them to the home.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Folks, despite a website crash at the end of the program on Friday, and by the way, uh Coco was uh our webmaster was really offended on Friday when I intimated that the website that crashed was ours.
And it wasn't ours.
Our site does not crash.
We have a server farm that can handle any amount of traffic.
What crashed was the leukemia lymphoma society server.
That's where we were, you know, our our site linked to theirs, and that's where you made the online donations.
And anyway, they uh they got it back up and running.
But despite that, it happened about a quarter of three with 15 minutes left of the program, despite that little crash at the end of the program on Friday, you all persevered and beat last year's total.
Soon as um as soon as we get off the air on Friday, as soon as we finished, I had a flash note that said we were up by uh I think 40,000, but that was still rolling in.
And it continued to roll in throughout the weekend, despite this wretched economy.
We actually had more donors this year, which is a record.
We've had a record number of donors this year.
And in the tally so far, we uh you know we extended the streak of uninterrupted gains right through 2011.
We've not had a down year.
I don't think we've had a down year.
There might have been one in there.
Yeah, I think after Hurricane Katrina, there was there was a uh a down year, but that was it.
We busted through our record on Friday.
And I say so far because we're still counting.
The uh people were still donating all the way into uh last.
In fact, there is still a small window of opportunity today for those who missed the chance to donate to the Leukemia Lymphoma Society over the weekend or on Friday.
If you were one of those who got a crashed website warning on Friday And uh did not end up going back.
You still can.
For those of you who did participate and donate, I mean, everybody's stunned and amazed and filled with uh with thanks.
So we've still got the donor page up at Rushlimbaugh.com and the phone number.
Is that still up and running, HR?
It is.
877 379 8888.
We are well over three million.
That comes out to like a million dollars an hour.
Stop and think about that.
Once a year.
There are programs, this is a testament to you all.
There are programs that go their whole whole show, broom everything except the fundraising effort.
Some of them go a whole week.
And then spend weeks promoting it and do it, you know, a lot of uh telephone and radio.
We are so unique.
We do things in an entirely different way.
Every dollar raised happened on that day.
Now, this is not to put anybody down.
I just I was late in life when I learned this.
I thought the Jerry Lewis telephone, for example, when they raised 24, 25 million, I thought it was during the show.
Most of that is raised in the year prior to the show going on the air.
You didn't know that, Dawn?
Oh no, they're out there working tirelessly.
All the the the the muscular dystrophy people are working tirelessly year in, year out, throughout the year.
And the telephone is the culmination of their evidence.
I always thought that they got that much money during the weekend.
Uh I'm not being critical, that's just the way they do it.
We do not pre-promote.
I mean, you didn't hear us talking a lot about this before we started in the days leading up, and we didn't raise a dime prior to what so we I mean, this is the epitome of generosity, the epitome of um efficiency.
Every dumb dime, every dollar was uh was raised on Friday through the weekend when we started on Friday.
So a heartfelt and sincere.
Thanks once again to everybody who has made this yet another record breaking year for our leukemia lymphoma society radio curathon.
All right.
Tax day.
This is a day that quarterly, well, everybody has to file their returns today or file for an extension.
Uh and this is the day that quarterly fire filers owe their first installment for uh the tax year of 2011.
So there's a lot of stories about taxes out there, and of course, I I don't believe in coincidence as you well know.
For example, there's an AP story out there that's been running everywhere.
For richest come up.
Federal taxes have gone down.
For some in U.S., they're non-existent.
They want, by virtue of the headline, they want you to think this is a story on how the rich continue to pay less and less and less.
It's just the opposite.
The rich are paying more.
Their effective rate may be down, but the rich are paying more in terms of the total burden.
The real story here is that forty-five percent of American households don't don't pay squat when it comes to income taxes.
Payroll tax is another matter.
10% of all taxpayers are paying half the freight.
The top 1% are paying 38% of all of it.
The top 1% are paying 38%.
Isn't it interesting too?
Forty-five percent of households don't pay any income taxes.
And what was the number we had last week of the percentage of Americans not working?
Forty 45 numbers that are, yeah, numbers working, 45.6% working, 756% not working, 45% non-paying any income taxes.
And yet the focus is on the evil rich.
And it happened on Sunday, right according- yes, snarling.
I'm gonna get the the the SP rating outlook.
It's drudges lead up here.
SP moves USA outlook to negative.
There's no no coincidence on that either.
Well, you're what we're a week or two before, a month before raising the debt limit, and here we've got a story about we're what are we, a month out, three weeks before the debt limit?
Now we got a story about how we might crash and default, and it's the end of the war.
Here comes another crisis.
It's just the same old thing.
We are not going to default.
We have a printing press.
This is absurd.
We are not going to default.
We have a printing press.
Even though U.S. credit rating outlook lowered by SP, Standard Imports lowered its outlook for the nation's long-term debt, even as it reaffirmed their top-tier triple A rating.
So look, two things are true here.
At some point, we are going to have a little bit of reckoning to deal with our debt here.
There are some questions about it.
At the same time, there are we're not going to default.
It's just it it isn't going to happen.
But they want people to think it might, because we're just weeks away from raising the debt limit, you see.
This is a story specifically designed.
There are no coincidences.
Specifically designed to help fulfill or push the notion of the left that we have to raise the debt ceiling by a lot and to go into further debt.
Bob Schiefer.
We have an example here of people talking at each other, not having a conversation.
Bob Schiefer with his template.
Bob Schiefer with his narrative, Bob Schiefer not listening to answers.
He had Paul Ryan on yesterday on Slay the Nation.
And he grilled him about tax cuts for the rich.
That's the template.
No matter what Ryan said, Schiefer was going to continue to ask and commentate on the fact that the rich continue to get tax cuts in his budget.
Here's how Schaefer started it all.
I guess the question I would have, uh, Congressman, why do these rich people need another tax cut?
I mean, they're already rich.
They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now.
Why cut their taxes some more?
Bob Schiefer is one of the rich.
You know, this is one of the disconnects.
He's talking about the rich as though they are a different group of people from him.
He is the rich.
He's pretty close to the one percent to the top one percent.
The guess I would have uh Congress, so why the rich people need another tax cut?
I mean, they're already rich, seem to be doing pretty well.
Why why cut their taxes some more?
As though it's his business what's enough.
But that's not even the point.
The point is there aren't any tax cuts in aggregate terms in Ryan's budget.
Here's Ryan's first answer.
We're not talking about cutting taxes.
We're just not agreeing with the president's tax increases.
I guess that's the new definition of tax cuts.
We're saying keep tax rates where they are right now and get rid of all those loopholes and deductions, which by the way are mostly enjoyed by wealthy people, so you can lower tax rates.
A simpler, flatter, fair tax code, more internationally competitive, so we can create jobs.
That's what we're proposing.
This isn't tax cuts.
Bob Schiefer doesn't listen, didn't listen, didn't hear the answer.
Am I misinformed?
I thought you were talking about lowering that uh rate for the topics.
In exchange taxpayers back to about 25%.
So isn't that a tax in exchange for losing your deductions?
So, in exchange for losing the loopholes and deductions that mostly higher income earners use.
So, what we're saying is keep tax revenues where they are.
Don't lower tax revenues, but clean up the tax code so that it works.
If you have really high tax rates, what you end up doing is you penalize small businesses.
So, here's an example, as I say, two people.
Ryan's trying to answer his question.
Ryan's trying to explain.
But Schaeffer's got the template.
It's got the narrative.
There are tax cuts for the rich, and I don't care what I hear.
I'm gonna keep talking about tax cuts of the rich.
Ryan is talking about simplifying a tax code.
Lower the rate, make it simpler, no loopholes, no deductions, keep it more internationally competitive.
You heard what he said.
Uh and he specifically says here, don't lower tax revenues.
See, this is most people, when they hear the phrase tax cuts, think the government's gonna get less money, which is fine with me, by the way, fine with all of us.
But that causes conniption fits on the left and among the ill-informed, uninformed, malinformed.
And this is what Schaefer is continuing to probe here.
Well, but but he's no, no, we're not lowering tax revenue.
In other words, we're gonna have a rate here to make it simpler.
Same amount of money is gonna keep rolling in.
Schiefer, not even listening to the answer.
He's got a template in his hand, he's sticking to it.
You just heard Ryan say we want to clean up the tax code so that it works.
If you have really high rates, what you end up doing is penalizing small business.
Schiefer doesn't hear it, and even if he had, I doubt that he would understand it.
If the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay?
It would seem to me that's where you get revenue.
How do you justify it?
Two things.
We don't have a tax problem.
Our revenues are going back to where they have been historically.
We have a big spending problem.
Spending is growing at a very unsustainable rate.
Massive tax increases.
President's proposing 1.5 trillion in tax increases.
Raising tax rates on anybody, especially successful small businesses, slows down the economy, loses jobs, and if you have lower economic growth, you have less revenues, and it puts you further behind.
Schaefer doesn't hear any of that.
That's the end of the soundbites.
But he didn't hear any of that.
He didn't hear Ryan say in the previous answer, we're talking about revenue neutral here.
He goes on to talk about what we really need to do is cut spending.
But Schieffer, he's just, he's stuck on tax cuts for the rich.
I mean, if you're going to borrow 40 cents of every dollar, reducing the amount of taxes the richest people in the country pay, it seemed to me that that's where you get your revenue.
No.
I had this um I remember telling you last week that it's at one point back in the 70s.
So you could confiscate, which means you could do it only one time.
You could confiscate not just the wealth, but everything the rich have.
And you could run the government for a week.
Today, if you confiscate, confiscate, that means you can do it one time.
You can't tax them next year because they don't have anything.
You raise something like 960 billion.
If you confiscate all the wealth of the rich, 960 billion on a deficit of 1.6 trillion, a national debt of 14 trillion.
The point being raising taxes on the rich is not where to go.
But where does all the other revenue come from the government raises?
On the people nobody talks about 2.2 trillion is like an aggregate total.
I'll find it in the story here, from the middle class and other groups that don't uh classify or qualify as being in the rich.
I gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Now, folks, as you know, I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan, and I don't want to quibble with Paul Ryan.
Uh, but I'm going to just a little bit.
It may be a minor technical point, but I don't think so.
I think it's actually uh imperative that everybody understand this.
Yeah, we have a spending problem.
There's no question that we have a spending problem.
But the problem we really face is how the money is spent.
What we really have is a redistribution of wealth problem.
That's to my mind, the bigger problem we have that the federal government, well, I say federal government, we mean the Democrats, Obama.
They now see their primary role as the redistributors of wealth.
And tax increases don't help that.
You know, they they pitch tax increases as, well, we got this huge deficit out there, we're gonna make it whole.
And they pitch tax increases, some sort of a moral thing.
Oh, wrong.
It would exacerbate the problem, given that the government's role is one of redistribution.
You give them more revenue, they're gonna spend it, right?
But how?
They are going to spend it by redistributing it in an effort to uh equalize outcomes and all the other rigamer roll.
Tax increases will only make that problem worse.
If if it were possible, what what really needs to happen is to take away the government's power to redistribute Our income against our will.
Have you ever wondered?
Just this is a little intellectual exercise, just to get people thinking about something.
What is the one entity in our country that never pays a cent in taxes?
The government.
The government, it earns what?
It takes and takes and takes, but it never pays taxes on its income.
Now I know what you're saying, but rush, but rush the government.
That's exactly what I want you to say, and I want you to challenge yourself.
The government doesn't pay any taxes on what it earns.
It has the power to levy taxes, has the power to collect, has the power to redistribute.
The one entity can go out and print, do whatever it wants, and never pays any taxes itself will be back.
Don't go away.
Taking care of little business here.
Stop and think about it, folks.
Even the tax code, even the tax print, and especially, I would say, the tax code used for redistribution.
Get this.
Details coming up here in a set.
Well, actually, these are the details of stories I've got in the stack coming up momentarily.
The bottom 40% of American earners.
The bottom 40% on average make a profit from the federal income tax.
What I mean by that is they get more money in tax credits than they would owe otherwise in taxes.
For those people, the government sends them a payment.
The earned income tax credit, the I don't have a school lunch tax credit, the defeat, the Republicans tax credit, the support unions and Democrats tax credits, there's all kinds of them out there.
And they add up 40%, the bottom 40% of American earners make money off the federal government by virtue of redistribution.
Where are they getting that money?
They're not earning it.
They're not paying any taxes.
We tax everything.
We even tax unemployment benefits.
But we don't tax the government.
Now, I ran that as a test, and everybody on the other side of glass, and I can make and do this whenever I want, cock their heads and frown.
Well, the because everybody say, why would the government pay taxes?
That's the point.
Government has this special place in everybody's heart.
It can it can go do things that you and I be put in jail for.
And while it does so, it's considered to be heroic or compassionate or what have you.
We don't tax the government.
Well, what would you do with the revenue if you did rush keep them from spending it, pay down the debt?
What if they had to pay or look at their earning money, they're taking money or what have you.
Just a little thought exercise.
I know we're never going to tax the government.
It's not the point of my making the mention.
My point is that government's the one entity that can do whatever it wants at any time to get money, including print it, and hey, cool.
As long as they're redistributing it to unions or approved Democrat voters.
We're now, and you knew this was coming, we're taxing cigarettes so much that drug dealers and gun runners are starting to get into the smuggling cigarette business.
I've got the story, and we have predicted this.
We predicted black market in cigarettes that was going to rival the black market in drugs and guns, everything else, because the tax revenue is getting so high.
Where was it?
Some state the other day proposed lowering tax revenues on cigarettes tax rates because it's they've reached the point now.
New Hampshire was whatever some state diminishing uh diminishing returns.
Uh But it regardless, what's what's happening is that these these uh smuggling cigarette operations taking place in Virginia and in New York.
Now, I've got a I got I got two stories here by the AP Brutton by the same guy.
Guy named Stephen Olmacher.
One was written on April 7th.
The other one was posted yesterday.
On April 7th, Mr. Olmacher writes.
Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households, it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47% will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.
Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions, and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
The bottom 40% on average make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.
For these people, the government sends them a payment.
Now, this is a story from last year.
This April 7th of last year.
Same guy has a story written this year.
April 7th of 2010, nearly half of U.S. households escape the federal income tax.
Now this year, Mr. Olmacher's story is for richest, federal taxes have gone down.
For some in U.S., they're non-existent.
So they've got this whole story over here about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, the rich aren't paying enough, the rich are getting away with nothing, and they bury the lead.
The lead is again that 45% of households do not pay any income taxes.
As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet today's deadline, ponder this.
The super rich pay a lot less in taxes than they did a couple of decades ago.
Nearly half of Americans pay no income taxes at all.
Seems to me that's the story.
Seems to me that 45% of Americans paying no income tax at all is the story.
Especially when you balance that with whatever you hear from the Democrats constantly is the rich aren't paying enough in taxes.
The rich, those evil dreaded rich are getting away with bloody murder.
They're not paying their taxes are going down.
Well, 45% of Americans pay nothing.
There are so many breaks that 45% of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010.
According to estimates by the tax policy center.
And of course, now the media is totally aboard with it.
They're totally on board.
This Mr. Oldmarker guy is all for all of this.
So In all, the tax code is filled with 1.1 trillion dollars in credits, deductions, and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer.
More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10% of earners in 2007.
Yet their story focuses on how the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes.
Their story and their headline for richest federal taxes have gone down.
Yet, halfway down the story, more than half the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10%.
Now, how do you how do you write a story focused on what the rich are getting away with when 45% of the non-rich are not paying taxes?
And the top 10% of the wage earners are paying over half of total tax revenue.
Eric Schoenberg.
Oh, yes, that's true.
Wait for AP to go out and find a rich guy who thinks he's not paying enough.
Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes.
Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy.
Their goal is to raise taxes on rich people like themselves.
Schoenberg who now teaches a business class at Columbia University said his income is usually north of half a million dollars a year.
But 2009 was bad for investment, so his income dropped to a little over 200,000.
I simply point out to people, you think this is reasonable?
Somebody in my circumstances should be only paying one percent of their income in tax.
Depends on how it's earned and what the law is.
Now, the Gallup people have a poll out here.
Those who pay taxes think that they are too high.
Half of Americans believe the amount they pay in federal income taxes is too high.
43% consider it about right, 4% think that it is too low.
And yet the AP goes out and makes a project out of finding rich people who think they're not paying enough.
Rich people are unhappy with the tax code.
Rich people who think they're not getting screwed enough.
That's our old buddies at AP.
And yet Gallup says that those who pay tax, half of Americans who pay federal income taxes say it's too high.
I wonder if this could have anything to do with the fact that forty-three percent or forty-seven, whatever number you believe, pay absolutely no income tax at all, and a lot of them even get money back.
These credits, earned income tax credit, which is preposterous preposterously named, by the way, the earned income tax credit.
In a recent speech outlining his vision for reducing the national debt, Obama repeated his call for repealing the Bush era tax rates on couples earning at least a quarter million dollars a year, and in doing so, he stated that the majority of wealthy Americans would agree that they should pay more, not so, according to a compilation of Gallup data from the last several years, not just recently.
And now we move, ladies and gentlemen, to a Wall Street Journal story.
Where the tax money is.
A dominant theme of Obama's budget speech last week was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest were asked to pay a little more.
Since he's asking, imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the president decided to go all the way and raise it to 100%.
Because after all, if you accept the premise that the rich aren't paying enough, let's say that what's the top rate?
36, 35, whatever it is.
Yeah, Russia's ready.
Their rate needs to be 40.
Oh, okay, good.
Well, why not 45?
Yeah, that's even better, Rush.
Exactly right.
Raise the top income tax rate on the rich to 45%.
Well, okay, cool.
Why not let's just go right to 50?
How about it?
Let's just raise the top rate to 50%.
That's exactly right, Russia.
Of course we should do that.
So the point is, once you agree that higher rates are necessary, that higher rates are fair, where do you stop?
Look, if we're all agreed that raising the top tax rate on the rich at 50% is good, wouldn't 60% be even better?
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
I think now you're starting to talk like you have some sense.
That would be meant 50% is a great figure.
Okay, Mr. New Castradi, why not sixty-five percent?
That's even better, Mr. Limbaugh.
See, where do you stop with this?
It's like the minimum wage.
If $10 an hour, if $750 is unfair, let's raise it at $10.
Yeah, okay.
Ah, that's good.
Hey, let's raise it to $20 an hour.
Oh, yeah, that's even better.
Okay, let's raise it.
The minimum income to $100,000.
Well, you can't do that, Rush.
Well, why?
Why can't you have as a minimum wage $100,000 a year?
That's a that's not reasonable, uh, Mr. Lombo.
So what wait a minute, what you you're agreeing here there's an amount we can't pay as a minimum wage, Mr. New Castrati?
On the same token, is there an amount tax rate that's too high?
How about 70%?
Let's raise the top rate.
That's even better, Mr. Lumba.
You keep getting more smarter and smarter if we speak here.
Okay, so let's raise the top marginal rate all the way up to 100%.
Let's just do it.
I mean, we gotta be fair here.
The rich aren't paying their fair share.
The AP's gone out there and found a bunch of rich people rich people who think they're not getting screwed enough and they want to pay more.
Let's just raise the rates 100%.
That's what the Wall Street Journal does here.
Let's stipulate that this is a thought experiment because Democrats don't need any more ideas.
But it's still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10% of taxpayers to close the deficit.
The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform, Washington will need to soak the middle class because that's where the money is.
Sit tight, and I will explain this when we get back.
Okay, and we are back.
El Rushbaugh.
Got to raise taxes, lower the deficit, right?
100% tax rate on the rich.
How much yet?
Stand by, because it ain't where the money is.
Something, by the way, we do this every year on Tax Day or about.
Our website has had these numbers for years, attempting to educate everybody on just who is paying taxes.
Trying to push back against this narrative that the rich aren't paying their fair share, they need to raise their taxes.
It's it's a uh you know, it's it's I don't know.
It's it never goes well, these stories are no matter what, the narrative never changes.
It never 22 years, folks, and the narrative doesn't change.
Consider the IRS income tax statistics of 2008.
That's the most recent year available.
Top 1% of taxpayers, those with salaries, dividends, and capital gains, roughly about 380,000 dollars paid 38% of taxes.
Top 1% paid 38%.
The top 5% pays 58.7%.
The top 10% pay 69.5%, 70%.
The top 10% are paying 70%.
The top 25% of earners are paying 86%.
The bottom 50%, these are IRS numbers, by the way, too.
The bottom 50% pay two percent of all federal income tax.
Okay, so assume that tax policy confiscated, just took everything, all the taxable income of all the millionaires and billionaires Obama has singled out.
That would yield 938 billion dollars.
We've got a 4 trillion dollar White House budget.
And you take, and you can do it one time, when you confiscate, it's gone.
They're not gonna have the same amount of money.
You're taking everything they've got.
938 billion dollars.
That's what you would raise.
Not even one fourth of the Obama budget.
The dirty little secret is two trillion dollars is what you would raise two and a half a little bit if you confiscated all income.
That's...
They can't tax enough to get out of it.
That's well, of course, what do you think the deficit is?
The deficit is an expression of how much more we're spending than what we take in.
So it makes total sense if you get 938 from the rich and basically two trillion from everybody else.
That gives you three trillion.
A little bit less than that, actually.
Then you're talking about a budget deficit of one to one point four trillion dollars.
Whereas the point is the money, and you wouldn't even close the deficit if you confiscated everybody.
If you confiscated every dime of income in this country, you would still, we would still have a trillion dollar or a half a trillion dollar deficit every year.
And and by the way, you could do it one time.
So next, what do you have to do?
Well, next you have to start taxing their children, Which is what we've been doing.
And then you have to tax their grandchildren.
People who are not born yet are paying taxes.
That's in just blunt economic terms.
The money at some point has to come from somewhere.
We are going out, and we're taking money from people not even in a womb yet.
That's what we're doing.
All the while, this is being blamed on George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and the rich.
And our problem is not that we don't have enough well, it is now.
Our problem is a redistribution problem.
spending money in ways that depress the creation of wealth throughout our society.
Now, let me leave you with something here to ponder until we get back.
The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in the rich paying more in taxes.
Wall Street Journal had this story three years ago.
▲
Export Selection