All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
August 4, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, you ready at Soundbite 13 and in order?
All right, good.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limboy here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Happy to have you with us, telephone number 80082-2882, and the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com on that Gallup poll, a USA Today Gallup poll that shows a vast majority of Americans oppose the debt deal, buried at the bottom of the gallop right up on the poll is this.
Americans as a whole increasingly view the debt and the deficit as a problem, with the percentage naming it as the most important problem in recent months, the highest in more than a decade.
And that is why these people in Washington know full well that they are governing against the will of the people.
They know that they're kicking this problem down the road for other people to handle.
They know that the American people are aware of this.
They know the American people are aware of the substance of it, and they know that this polling data is a result of people's knowledge of the substance of what this debate was about, not the way it happened.
Oh yeah, there might be Americans upset at the way the negotiations went, because it wasn't open.
It wasn't the way the legislative process is supposed to happen.
All of it was done in secret.
And that is an irritant, but that's nothing new ever since Obama got to town.
What people have learned is that precisely because these things are being done in secret, it must be something they don't want us to know.
In advance, just like Obamacare, Pelosi said we gotta pass it to sign out, find out what's in it.
They wouldn't tell us what was in this.
We had to find out for ourselves.
So have faith out there, be confident.
You know, the uh this is just just a matter of elections.
Just a matter of elections, and nobody up there ought to feel safe is what all of this means.
Now, yesterday afternoon, um this is just another classic illustration of liberal democrat projection.
The MSNBC host Martin Bashir interviewed a guy named Stanton Peel.
Stanton Peel's psychologist and an expert on addiction.
And the host, Martin Bashir, urged Stanton Peel to psychologically evaluate supporters of the Tea Party.
And Stanton Peel, is anybody have you ever heard of Stanton Peel?
Big addiction expert.
You ever heard of him?
I haven't either.
Stanton Peel said, Well, it reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have.
They want a state of happiness or nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance reminds us of the Norway situation.
When people are thwarted at obtaining something they can't have, they often strike out Norway's one kind of example to one kind of reaction to that kind of frustration.
If you ask me, this guy just described liberals.
They're the ones seeking nirvana.
They are addicted to spending.
Who is more addicted than Democrats and their addiction to spending and their addiction to taxing?
But what's the bottom line here?
The left thinks people who want to cut back on government spending are delusional, even crazy.
Now, how crazy is that?
Didn't Obama and the Democrats just hold a gun to the American economy and demand 2.4 trillion dollars for their spending habit?
They are the equivalent of the addict.
They are the equivalent of holding us up.
They ran the stick up.
They have the addiction.
They have the addiction to taxing and spending, and they just held us up for another 2.4 trillion dollars.
And the Tea Party?
Tea Party people are the addicts.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Here's how it actually sounded.
This uh this Stanton Peel, Dr. Stanton Peel, as uh the author of a book, Seven Tools to Beat Addiction.
And during a discussion about the Tea Party, Martin Bashir said, What is the effect of giving people their way all the time?
How does it shape our thinking, behavior if by being adamant and dogmatic we get our way?
Well, the way I think about it is they're pursuing goals that can't be achieved.
It's sort of like a child who has some kind of fantasy, and they keep asking you uh to give them things to acquire that, but it's impossible to arrive at the goal that they want.
The idyllic past that they're pursuing probably never existed, and it's certainly not something that we can reach right now.
This guy's not even talking about addiction.
This guy's a full-fledged liberal, sounding like a liberal political scientist or political analyst.
What he's talking about has nothing to do with addiction.
But note what's going on here.
These people are so afraid of you in the Tea Party that they have to uh uh uh lash out in this way and try to make it sound as though you are delusional, mentally unstable addicts.
And how about this little reference, the idyllic past that they're pursuing probably never existed, and certainly not something that we can reach right now.
Whoever said anything about that?
We are totally in the present, and we are trying to stop the destruction of the United States private sector economy.
We're trying to dis to stop the destruction of the American family.
We're called addicts.
We're the ones being held up.
Obama, the Democrats, half the members of Congress are spending and taxing addicts.
They're the ones that held a gun to our head, they're the ones that held us up to feed their addiction.
So after Peel said that the idyllic past the Tea Party is pursuing never existed, Bashir says, So you're saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future.
Now, what kind of question is that?
That question is deranged.
But we'll play the answer for you anyway, because we're here having fun.
They're adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things.
It reminds us of delusion and psychosis.
It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have.
They want a state of happiness or of nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance.
And it reminds us also of the Norway situation, because when people are thwarted, when a child is thwarted in attaining something that can't be had, they often strike out.
And I think Norway is one example of one kind of reaction to that kind of uh frustration.
What what what what what's a Tea Party striking?
Who in the Tea Party is striking out?
Striking out at who?
At what?
It's Tea Party people getting beat up by Obama union thugs.
Tea Party people are peaceful, they're the ones being hassled.
This guy's nothing more than political hack.
Disguised as an addiction specialist.
It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have.
They want to say their happiness in Nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance.
If you ask me, the spending and taxing addicts are getting everything they want.
And they're lying and they're doing everything addicts do to get it.
And they're destroying their own family, i.e., country, everything addicts do.
The Democrats and Obama are doing, and this guy goes on this perverted network and impugns the Tea Party with this kind of behavior.
But we're not through.
Martin Bashir finally said, Well, going back to the Tea Party in this country, do you think that having achieved their goal, no new taxes?
Instead of this actually making them think about compromise in the future, it's actually simply going to harden them.
So this kind of battle, this kind of standoff, this kind of face off is just going to become routine in what he's asking an addiction specialist this question.
So here's this addiction specialist asking or answering a question about whether the Tea Party is going to be more inclined to compromise or harden and hold fast to their principles.
Well, I'm looking one go beyond.
They want no new taxes because they seek some kind of idyllic past.
No new taxes won't bring that.
It won't bring an economic recovery.
So then they'll have to turn their attention to some other supposed method for attaining that until they go through all of them.
Perhaps they can push through all of them.
Perhaps people will become discontented, perhaps they'll become discontented.
And then I think people are likely to get riled up, and it could become a very angry movement, could potentially become a violent movement.
I kid you not.
Is it is a jackass, he's a jerk, and he's a no-nothing.
But he's a total political hack.
So you Tea Party people, guess what?
You're headed down the road to becoming violent as a movement.
when your no new taxes don't provide you an economic recovery.
He's basically saying an economic recovery isn't possible, particularly with no new taxes.
And when you realize this, you are going to become violent.
And we all should be very worried.
Now I looked this guy up, this uh this uh this Peel guy, Stanton Peel.
His first article on addiction was published in Psychology Today, 1974, entitled Love Can Be an Addiction.
He thinks love is an addiction.
Now you can be addicted to the idea of being in love, but love itself, of course, is not an addiction.
But this guy thinks that it is.
Now he has a PhD and a law degree.
He's not even a medical doctor.
And he's out there running around as an addiction specialist.
Recruited by Martin Bashir at MSNBC to psychoanalyze the Tea Party.
Now, for what it's worth, Al Gore, Al Gore is also out there.
He talked the other day about the need for an American Arab Spring, a nonviolent revolution.
Not like what the Tea Party's doing, he said.
Now the Tea Party, that's a violent revolution.
We don't need it.
need our own Teriri Square, but not violent like the Tea Party is.
I hope you people in Tea Party never change, and I hope you don't give up, and I hope you continue to grow.
You have these people so bamboozled and scared.
I think for the first time, I think for the first time in the 23 years of this program, the inside the Beltway ruling class is generally bamboozled.
Genuinely bamboozled by you people now.
And of course, they're doing exactly all they know to do, and that is impugn and beseech and try to destroy your credibility and so forth.
Make you think that you are unstable and so forth.
All because you oppose tax increases.
All because you oppose tax increases.
Because the real addicts are Obama and the Liberal Democrats.
And they are the real criminals.
They are the ones holding us up.
So what tax cuts are the gateway drug to mass murder now?
Is this what Mr. Peel wants us to believe?
Tax cuts the gateway drug to mass murder.
And by the way, the Psychoanalysis didn't stop with Dr. Stanton Peel.
Same network.
Later on that day, Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with Jah Huffington, who is the editor of the Huffing and Puffington Post.
And O'Donnell said, how should the president handle this after the situation where they took the debt ceiling hostage and they ran this crazy negotiation?
He has to somehow suggest that there's an optimistic course here.
I think he needs intense therapy.
To explain to himself, first of all, why he did what he did.
Because there is no rational explanation.
Economist after economists.
Most recently, J.P. Morgan told its top clients that this deal is going to reduce the growth rate by over one percent.
1.5 maybe.
It is disastrous for the country.
I mean, the pain that's out there is really palpable.
Gosh, I feel like I'm watching a Bond movie and the villain is a woman.
"I'm not going to be a good one." Jah Huffington thinks Obama needs intense therapy to explain to himself why he did what he did.
There's no rational explanation for what Obama did.
Now, also in this uh folks, the Tea Party is being uh ridiculed and criticized because of their failure to compromise.
Refusal to compromise.
Marco Rubio had something fascinating.
Well, yeah, it's fascinating.
He said something very interesting about this, and the reason it's interesting to me is because I agree with it.
And I've said the same thing in the context of the Mideast peace process.
I'll have that when we come back.
A couple things here.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, first I I uh I think I'm gonna try to get the email address for Stanton Peel.
I'm gonna send him a note.
Dear Dr. Peel, some idiot used your name last evening on TV.
His rant was so absurd it could taint your reputation.
Be warned, I'm looking out for you, signed Rush Limbaugh.
Some idiot was on MSNBC using your name, saying some of the stupidest stuff I've ever heard.
Snerdly, you know, we don't do guests on this program, but I want you to get me a proctologist.
If MSNBC is gonna go out and get an addiction specialist, to talk about the Tea Party, I'm gonna get a proctologist on here to talk about the libs because they're anal about taxing and spending and borrowing, and their leaders are nothing but a bunch of hemorrhoids.
And I want to get a proctologist in here and have a serious discussion about anal poisoning regarding taxing and spending and borrowing.
All right, to the phones we go.
Where are we going?
Charlotte, North Carolina, Jeb, you're first.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, quite an honor.
Left you on the Haney Project, by the way.
Well, thank you very much.
Hey, I got two quick things.
One, you you get Paul Krugman out there, so-called economist, and with our debt, now 100% of our GDP.
Yeah.
History tells us that no modern economic society has ever sustained itself.
They've all failed.
History has proved it when you've reached a hundred percent debt to your GDP.
So I mean, the guy's just a nutcase.
But what I wanted to talk about.
Yeah, but he thinks we're not spending and borrowing enough.
He says that that's but that does isn't an issue.
Debt doesn't matter.
And this guy's teaching the young minds at Princeton University that this is an economic theory that's you know plausible.
But uh, what I want to talk about now that we've gotten past the whole debt debate, and you see Zah Huffington and Chuck Yu Schumer and all these people now pushing the whole jobs issue that now we can focus on jobs.
Yep.
You get Ratner on MSNBC with uh Joe Scarper, and he's talking about how you know we've got the lowest uh GDP to uh income uh ratio we've got at 15%, and they want to raise revenue and they you know how they want to raise revenue,
and they start talking about jobs and what their policies are, and what I was hoping you could do over the next few months while we've got uh uh the most important election coming in our history is to expose the administration's regulations and policies they put forth.
You know, you hear from Steve Wynne and and the uh uh founder of Home Depot saying that this administration with its regulations and policies is the biggest wet blanket to capitalism that they've ever seen.
But nobody ever really specifies other than Obamacare what the regulations are and what their impact is on job creation.
And I was hoping that in the future, near future, you could start delving a little bit more.
You know, there's I've got a story in the stack today that uh in in just I forget the last month or so, there's nine and a half uh billion dollars in new regulations, Obama he just keeps issuing them as executive orders, and you're right, nobody does explain them or define them or even report them.
This story I doesn't say what they are either, just that they're being issued.
Hey, stock market down three hundred.
It's hovering at 290, 280 or something, 292.
Isn't they tell us that the stock market would do exactly what it's doing if we defaulted.
We had to prevent default.
Oh my God, we can't default.
The stock market will plummet.
People will lose their life savings interest rates will skyrocket, isn't the stock market doing exactly what we were told it would do if we defaulted.
Isn't it?
Lied to yet again.
We had to do the deal.
We had to do the deal.
We have to avoid default, the Republicans acting in total fear.
We can't default, we will be blamed for it.
The stock market will plummet.
Oh my god, oh my god.
Well, we got the deal.
Most Americans disapprove of the deal, and the stock market's plummeting.
We may as well default as gonna happen at some point down the road.
One more sound by Zazah Huffington.
I didn't know she became a shrink, but apparently she is.
She's she ticked off in Obama.
She was on MSNBC last night.
Uh Lawrence O'Donnell said, going forward, Zha, how how does uh Obama run?
How does he govern and run this re-election campaign at the same time?
Well, as we can see, running the re-election campaign is clearly the highest priority because he's already had 37 fundraisers this year.
And it's been a pretty intense yeah.
I went through and looked since 2009 how many times he has said jobs priority number one, the sustained focus of this administration, the relentless focus of this administration.
We are pivoting to jobs.
Nobody believes that anymore.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, hey, Jaja, we never believed it.
This guy wouldn't know how to create a job of his life depended on it.
He's never had to make a payroll.
He's the least qualified guy when any room he walks into, he wouldn't know how to create a job.
He hasn't the slightest idea.
Furthermore, he doesn't care about creating jobs.
Practically his whole economic team has abandoned him.
Other than Timmy Geitner, tax cheat.
So Marco Rubio.
Marco Rubio makes a great point.
He took to the Senate floor, gave uh an interesting 10-minute speech on the two competing economic visions that divide us.
And rather than blaming politicians in Washington for the division, he said the problems run much deeper than just the politicians in Washington.
He said Washington is divided because America is divided on this point.
He's right.
John McCormick, writing in the Weekly Standard, says that he was civil.
He was fair-minded toward his opponents, but he didn't promise to bring us all together with a balanced Approach, or by being a uniter, not a divider.
He didn't promise to turn our blue states and red states into one nation of purpley goodness.
He argued we may not find compromise between the two visions.
We may have to choose one or the other.
And therein lies the brilliance.
The debate, Marco Rubio said, is between those who believe the government's job is to promote economic justice, i.e.
the redistribution of wealth, that the government's job is to determine the equality of outcomes of people's lives, and those who believe the government's job is to promote economic opportunity.
Now Rubio said one is not more moral than the other.
They are two very different visions of the role of government in America, but it lies at the heart of the debate that we are having as a nation.
By the way, I will, this is the only thing I will disagree with.
I do think that one is more moral than the other.
I do not think that there is any moral superiority in economic justice, because that's not what the term means.
Economic justice does not mean fairness and equality for everybody.
That's not what it means.
And that is not moral.
In fact, as Ronaldus Magnus said, even if we do nothing, the Soviet Union eventually will implode.
It'll crush in on itself because of its own immorality.
He said, Well, we can't wait for that to happen because they can do a whole lot of damage before that eventually happens to them.
I do think there is a moral superiority to economic opportunity.
Because economic justice, where is the morality?
Where is the morality in the idea that the purpose of a government is to determine who ends up with what?
That's not moral to me.
So I respectfully disagree with Senator Rubio.
I think one is more moral than the other.
But when he got to the point of discussing the solution to all this, he said, ultimately we may find that between these two points, there may not be a middle ground.
And in fact, as a nation and as a people, we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America moving forward.
That there may not be any way to compromise, that we're going to have to choose one or the other.
And he's dead on right.
That's why this silly notion of compromise, Obama and the Democrats demanding compromise, all that means is that we give up our core beliefs and the differences are too striking.
How do you compromise with something that's wrong?
How do you compromise, say, with evil?
In the case of the Middle East peace process and the Israelis.
Where is the compromise with people who want you exterminated?
Where is the compromise with people who would just as soon run you into the Mediterranean Sea and drown you?
Where is the compromise there?
Peace will come in the Middle East when one of those two sides loses, or put the other way, when one of those two sides wins.
And it's the same thing here.
In the United States, the two competing visions are so different from one another, are so strikingly different, so stark in their differences, that there is no compromise.
I know a lot of American people get nervous hearing that.
They want to compromise, especially women.
Oh, God, now can't we all just get along?
I hate the fighting.
I hate the fighting.
Somebody's going to have to win and somebody's going to have to prevail.
And that's what elections are about.
And we elect people.
We send them to Washington to defeat the ideas of our opponents because we think those ideas not only are destroying the country, we also think they're a little bit immoral.
So there is no compromise.
And anybody starts talking about whenever there's a compromise on something like this, when the differences are this stark, it isn't helpful and it isn't good.
You know, the White House wanted the market to tank before the deal.
Remember, there was a we had the headline.
We had the story.
CNBC had the story, Washington annoyed at Wall Street's failure to panic before the deal was done.
Remember that.
And so now Wall Street is panic.
They said, frankly, it uh a bit of panic would be very helpful for us right now.
Oh, where's the compromise with people who think that way?
Where is the compromise with people like Obama, the Democrats who want Wall Street to panic?
Okay, we'll compromise a little bit of panic.
Okay, we'll agree to a little bit of panic.
Well, this wasn't supposed to happen.
The wizards of Smart told us that if we got a deal and didn't default, that everything would be fine.
That if we defaulted the market would plunge and interest rates would go up.
Just the exact opposite of what the wizards of SMART told us.
Now, Zha's right, Obama's had 37 fundraisers.
At this point, in his first term, George W. Bush had held seven.
Bill Clinton had held only five.
You look at slavery.
Where's the compromise there?
I mean, the people in that debate who believed in slavery and those who didn't.
Nobody thought that could be settled by splitting the difference.
This notion of compromise and the differences here that we're talking about are indeed stark.
Economic justice.
No matter how they try to dress it up, economic justice or social justice really just boils down to Democrats taking people's money who won't vote for them and giving it to people who will.
That's what economic justice is, and that's why I disagree with Rubio.
I think it is less moral than my side.
Quick time out.
L. Rushball on a roll on the EIB network.
And your phone calls are next.
And I haven't even got to the healthcare stack yet.
All right, back to the phones.
Argyle, Texas.
John High, and welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
It's a Tea Party conservative.
I've noticed how the names we've been called is getting worse and worse, and I think it's time we turn the table.
And the tax and spend liberal no longer really meets the requirement because they're taxing me.
They're going to tax my daughters, they're going to tax my yet unborn grandchildren.
They're going after their birthday money.
They're going after their piggy banks.
They're going after them.
They're financial pedophiles.
They are.
That's what we're talking about.
Financial pedophiles.
Financial pedophiles, addicts, criminals sticking us up.
I like it.
Exactly right.
These people are sick.
They are sick.
They are destroying themselves in the process of all this, too.
This is what one of the things I don't intellectually understand.
I don't understand how it is they think they are going to be immune from all this destruction.
They destroy the U.S. economy.
What do they think they are going to end up with?
What job are they going to have?
Or do they expect not to work, that the government is going to pay them not to work and they're going to be living in a hammock the rest of their lives.
I what what do they expect is going to be their role in a destroyed private sector?
Thank you, Russia.
All right.
Glad you called.
Rob in uh in Westminster, Maryland.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Uh what I wanted to comment on earlier comment you had where the Democrats are concerned that Obama is running out of bullets to stimulate the economy.
In fact, he's got a huge arsenal of weapons that he could turn the economy around overnight.
If Obama would simply remove the sand that his administration has thrown into the gears of the American economy, it would take off immediately.
He could cancel all the EPA regulations, the consumer protection and ocean regulations.
He could release the pending oil and gas drilling and coal mining permits that he refuses to process an issue.
He could cancel Obama's fair.
Well, exactly.
You know, this is I'm glad you mentioned it, because of course uh w there's all kinds of ammo.
There's all kinds of common sense ammo, and that is get Washington out of people's lives.
Exactly.
Your your your points are well made.
The fact that they think they're out of bullets.
The fact that they think that they're out of ammo, and and including Bernanke in that, what that tells me is that they don't really think that they can get away with another stimulus that either the markets won't accept it or the country won't accept it, or it won't work, or what something is stopping them.
If we bel if we believe them, I'm not sure I believe them, by the way, when I hear them complain that they've out of bullets.
But no, there's the ability to continue to scam the American people the way they have for the last three years with the help of the media.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right, good points.
I'm glad you called Bob.
Thanks very much.
Uh yep, we got time for another, and it is Herb in Orlando.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
Hi.
I have a question about Social Security.
All it is is just a government run annuity.
You pay in for a bunch of years and then you reach a point where you start drawing out, and some actuary can easily figure out how much you need to pay in in order to cover your withdrawals.
So why don't we just raise the Social Security tax to cover the future expenses?
Um you realize.
I mean, it's just it's just an insurance plan.
And we're not gathering up enough premiums.
Uh yeah, and why is that?
Why is that?
I mean, they'd let her talk about how it's going broke and come up with these unacceptable things to allegedly fix it.
And all they need to do is be honest with the American people and say, if you want this insurance plan, we're gonna have to charge you enough to cover payouts.
See, the problem with that is that the American people think that all of their working lives they have been paying for their social security.
Well, they're not gonna be able to do that.
Now, if you run and tell them, if you run and tell them, oh, by the way, you know all those contributions and all those FICA deductions, guess what?
It's not there.
Well, it's not so much that it's not there, it's just not enough.
Oh, it's not there on a on a case-by-case person, a person by person, but it's not there.
That that is actually correct.
There's they have been using that money to balance the federal budget or to offset the the the deficit and make it appear smaller.
That money is long gone.
There is it's nothing but a bunch of IOUs now.
Well, but I also have sort of solution to that.
We've got this unfunded liability of some sixty trillion or some outrageous number.
Yeah.
In addition to raising the Social Security tax to cover enough to pay people when they start withdrawing.
We also need to tax on another small percentage for a hundred years until we pay down that unfunded liability.
Well, I don't know why I didn't think of this.
Raise taxes to cover sixty trillion dollars unfunded liability.
Simple.
Gee, folks, I'm sorry I've been letting you down here.
Well, another busy broadcast hour.
Exciting busy broadcast hour in the can.
And on its way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which is up and running at rushlimbaugh.com, our virtual broadcast museum.
It's an amazing thing if you haven't visited the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
Do so at rushlimbaugh.com.
Really cool the way it's been put together.
▲
Export Selection