All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:19
November 2, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my good friends and buddies, and welcome back to the most listened to radio talk show in America, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
And we're right here as we always are.
Remember, as long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
Now, we're at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-288.
Greetings, my good friends and buddies, and welcome back to the most listened to radio talk show in America, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
And we're right here as we always are.
Remember, as long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
We're at the Distinguished and Prestigious Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, kill the music.
And now we go back to Joshua in Selmar, California.
Joshua, thank you for holding on.
I appreciate you doing this.
No problem.
23 years old, and you think there's no future for you because the people who have what they want and need have got it.
They don't spend anymore.
There's nothing for you to get.
Correct?
Correct.
Yes.
Now, I want to tell you at any time here, during my explanation to you, feel free to interrupt and ask me a question.
Okay.
The reason I wanted to hold you over and talk to you is because there are a lot of people who think like you do because what you've been taught.
And I want to try to not convince you, but show you how wrong you are because your future depends on it.
You have every bit as much of an opportunity to make something of yourself as I did.
And I continue to have.
There's nobody shutting you out.
There's no way that all the money in the country is locked up, inaccessible to you.
It's not locked up and inaccessible to anybody.
The thing is, you have to earn it.
It's not given.
It's not distributed.
There is nobody in charge of who gets what.
That's up to you.
I want to tell you a story.
I want to tell you a story about a rich guy.
I want to tell you a story about a guy that's in the top 1%.
This guy has an airplane.
He has a, pardon?
Oh, I'm listening.
He has a boat.
He has a large house.
He's got eight automobiles.
Pretty much probably what you think of when you think of the 1%.
Correct.
This guy, who you probably think's got what he wants and doesn't spend any money, spends three hours every week paying bills, writing checks to people.
This guy has 75 people who work for him.
He pays each and every one of them.
Over 20 years, only one has left.
Nobody has been fired.
He pays them much more than they would earn elsewhere because he loves them and likes them and doesn't want them to leave because it's too big a hassle to replace them.
People that work in his house, people that fly his airplane, people that captain his boat sometimes earn twice what other people who do the same thing make because he likes them.
They do a great job and he doesn't want them to leave.
When this guy takes his airplane someplace, there are three people he's paying on it.
There's a flight attendant and there are two pilots.
I don't know what the total amount they're paid is, but it's also the amount that those three people are paid, if they were one person, would put them in the top 1%.
All you have to do is earn $387,000 a year in America, and you are in the top 1%.
If you earn $50,000 a year or more, Joshua, in a year, you're in the upper 10% of earners in this country.
The top 1%, bottom of that is $387,000.
When this guy gets on his airplane, in addition to these three people, there's what's called the line crew.
They work at the gas station that puts fuel in the jet.
That fuel costs anywhere from $4 to $5 a gallon, and it takes so much that you buy it by pounds.
People who work for the gas station also are paid by the guy who owns the airplane.
So in addition to the three people that are on the airplane, there's probably five or six servicing the airplane.
Then there's the mechanic in the hangar that services the airplane when it's not flying.
There are probably 10 or 12 people being paid to make sure that airplane can fly whenever it needs to.
All of them make six figures, except the line crew, not sure what they make.
They're paid by another company, but the company charges a lot.
Same thing with the boat.
Same thing with the house.
I mean, the idea that the rich are not spending their money is so absurd.
If the rich were not spending their money, we'd be a third world country.
If the rich weren't spending their money, there would be no jobs.
Unemployment wouldn't be 9%.
It'd be 100%.
Now, I don't know where you get the idea that because there are rich people, you don't have a chance.
But it's precisely because there are rich people.
And what we have here is a meritocracy.
I mean, there are some people who are rich because they inherit it, but most people who are in the 1% are there because they work harder than anybody else, because they found what they love doing.
And what they do really isn't work to them.
They can't wait to get up every day, including on Mondays, to go back to work because it's what they love most in the world.
And since they love it, they happen to do it better than most other people do.
And that's how they end up making a lot of money.
They provide a service or make a product, do something that enough people want and love that it supports them.
Now, there are a lot of other people out there who are criticized people like this, saying that they're not paying their fair share, that they're selfish or they're greedy or what have you.
There's another thing, too, that you need to know that the people in this top 1%, it's not the same bunch of people.
It changes.
People move into and out of the various categories of wealth all the time.
I knew a guy who lost $200 million twice in his life and earned it back a third time.
He was in the commodities business.
You are going to be getting out of college soon, and somebody's told you that there's no future for you because unless you can find a way to get the rich to unlock their money, there isn't anything left for you.
You couldn't be more wrong.
If you would change your thinking and realize that whatever it is you've learned in college, if it's what you love, and if it's not what you love, go do what you love and forget what you learned in college.
Find out what you love.
Go do it.
Do it better than anybody else.
And you'll find that there will be all kinds of people who will pay you to do it.
If you do it well, if you do it dependably, if you make it well, if you make it great, if you make it dependably, if you can be counted on, if you can be trusted, if your stuff is great, if your work is great, there will be people who will pay you more than you ever dreamed.
And Rush, I get that.
It makes sense for the individual, and I'm happy for me.
You know, and I understand that for me personally.
But when I'm talking about my generation as a whole, the way I see it, there's only a certain amount of money.
And the way I see it, the top 1% have invested in all the vehicles possible to make sure they continue to make more money.
No.
And because they have more money in these vehicles, they can make money faster.
So as you get, the argument is going to get rich get rich.
At any point that you want to point to in American history, there's always been X amount of money.
But every day it's different.
Hopefully, the U.S. economy grows.
It's an expanding pie.
It gets bigger.
What's happening to our economy now is it's shrinking.
It is shrinking because people running the government have the incorrect policies.
They are funneling all the money to government, Joshua.
They're doing everything they can to take money out of the private sector where you are going to earn it.
For you to do well, the government has to get smaller.
And the money that they're taking from people has got to be kept with the people because they can grow their own businesses and thus hire more people.
But at any point, you know, any generation, somebody in any generation could have said, as you just said, somebody's got all the money.
There's only so much money.
On any given day, there's only so much money.
But everybody parts with it.
Nobody hoards everything they've got.
My point to you was, a guy just spends three hours a week paying bills.
Who do you think he's paying?
Yeah, no, and I understand.
But every rich person's doing this.
There's not a rich person in the world not spending his money.
They can't live if they don't spend the money.
There's no way to enjoy it if you don't spend it.
They're all spending it.
All right.
Rush, can I give you a quick prediction?
Are you hearing anything?
I'm really trying to help you because if you listen to what I'm saying, you're going to go out there and be light years ahead of everybody in your generation who's going to be sitting around thinking they're defeated because they've been taught like you have it.
There's no more money to be had.
But there is.
The rich are happy to part with it if you give them something they want or if you do something they need done.
The object is you.
The objective is you.
The person who has to get this done is you.
Nobody.
Let me tell you, you know what I once did?
I'll tell you another story.
I used to know when he was alive, the former commerce secretary, Robert Mossbacker.
And back in the early 90s, Robert Mossbacker told me that you weren't a player in America unless you had $250 million.
If you didn't have $250 million, the rest of the wealth community would sneer at you and they wouldn't consider you one of them.
I said, well, would you give me $100 million so I could get in the group?
He looked at me.
He said, what do you mean give you $100 million?
Yeah, I said, if I just had $100 million more, then I wouldn't have to work anymore.
I could actually support the way I live now.
If you would just give me, he looked at me.
What do you mean, give you $100 million?
Well, you said I was performing the experiment.
There was no way he was going to give me $100 million, even though he had it times 20.
He wouldn't have given it to a member of his family until he died.
The point is, nobody gives anybody anything.
Everybody who has what they have earns it.
With work, there's not one power sitting there deciding who ends up with what.
Obama would love to be that person, and we're trying to prevent that from happening.
But there is not a God.
There's not a money God that determines who ends up with what.
What you end up with is owing totally to what you do.
The U.S. economy is not a zero-sum game.
If somebody earns a dollar, it does not mean somebody's lost a dollar.
If somebody loses a job, it doesn't mean somebody was hired.
If somebody was hired, it doesn't mean somebody was fired.
It is a dynamic, expanding economy, and it's made for the fit.
It's made for the competitive.
It's made for those who want to play the game and have something to offer.
It's not made for people who think they're owed something.
It's not made for people who think the game's rigged.
It's not made for people who think life's unfair.
You have just as much opportunity as Warren Buffett's had or as I've had.
It's up to you to use it, and it's up to you to recognize that you do have the opportunity.
And don't worry about your generation.
It's not your problem.
It's theirs.
You got enough problems worrying about yourself.
If your generation blows it, don't be part of it.
Got it.
Be distinct.
Be different.
If your generation is going to sit around and be a bunch of slothful takers, don't defend them and don't feel sorry for them and don't be part of it.
You'll be that much ahead of the game.
Got it.
Can I add one more question?
Yeah, if you take your mouth hand away from the phone so I could hear you.
Can you hear me now?
Talking to somebody.
I was getting advice.
What do you want to ask me?
I just want to say, I've been a stockholder since 2008.
What I'm noticing is all those, yes, I understand where you're coming from with what's getting paid.
I can't understand what you're saying.
I don't know what you're doing out there.
You got the phone covered.
But I gather you're not here.
You've been a stockholder since 2008 and what?
Put it this way.
I've been a stockholder in 2008.
And what I'm noticing now is that when the average American can't buy the TV from Best Buy, they can't buy.
And I know, and I know they should be saving them.
Joshua, Joshua, there is no average American.
The average American is a myth.
The average American is a statistic.
People are buying TVs.
They're buying them from Best Buy.
They're buying them from Apple.
They're buying them from everywhere.
TVs are sold.
You can go buy one today.
Go to a mall and you'll find people buying TVs.
People are buying everything today.
Not as many people.
The economy is not doing well.
There aren't as many people working, and they don't have as much disposable income.
Some people, it's their fault.
Other people's, in this day and age, it's not because of policies this administration's put into effect.
But I feel like I've wasted my time with you, but I hope that the others in the audience, it's not been a waste of time.
You've offered me a great opportunity here, but you're clearly not hearing what I'm saying, or at least you're not acting like you're getting it.
I hope at some point that you do, because sadly as it might be, people like you do represent the future of the country.
And if you're going to sit around and be a taker, if you're going to sit around and be bitter, somebody's got more than you do, somebody's not spreading the wealth or whatever, you're going to be miserable your whole life.
And nothing is going to be able to make you happy.
You're not going to be able to make yourself happy.
Nobody else will make you happy.
You're just going to be miserable.
And maybe you want to be miserable.
Some people do.
I don't.
I appreciate your holding on.
I got to take a break here because of the constraints of time.
We'll be back, folks, and continue right after this.
We're back.
And where are we headed next?
Tim in Salem, Oregon.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Dittos.
Thank you very much, sir.
I would like to give you a different way to look at the real estate loan problem, and that is to follow the money trail.
Real estate loans generate loan fees.
I recently reviewed a local bank, and 80% of the revenue came from generating real estate loans and then selling them on the third market.
Banks have about 6,000 pages of bank regulations, and they have federal examiners coming in annually.
One of the things that they look for is loan concentrations based on industry.
So the bank examiners knew about the bank's real estate concentration.
When I worked for a major bank, we had real estate loans that have put on the market value that exceeded our net worth.
So what we did is we securitized the loans and then sold them to third party.
You know, that's pretty consistent so far.
So take a look at whether the banks currently securitize the loans and then sold them to a third party, and they did that to get the loan fees.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened down the line many times.
So third, it's the third party.
Now, we don't want to go third party.
I mean, that's how we lose.
Standard and poor's fault.
All right.
No matter what, they're going to have people who want to deflect the blame from Congress.
We're always going to have people who want to say Congress didn't do it.
The politicians do it.
The Democrats didn't do it.
There's enough blame on this mortgage business to go around a number of times.
I start with whoever it was that had the idea.
And that's the Democrats.
And their motivation.
Quick votes.
Pure and simple.
Spending other people's money into a good.
Okay, folks, I'm being hounded.
People's memories here are just too long.
I'm being hounded here for all these soundbites about me that I started.
They go through the first 15 soundbites of the roster today and skip them because they're all about me.
And so people are like, you're going to play those?
Okay, I figure now that we've let all but a half hour of the show go by, we can get into some of this.
Let's go to the top of the soundbites, Mike.
Let's go to number one here.
And I got a note from Cookie List.
I just got to tell you, Cookie sent me an email.
Look, could I please have an exemption from our ban on any audio from Al Sharpton show?
And I said, why?
Because he said something hilarious about you.
So I relented, not knowing what it was.
I knew I wasn't going to find out until the show started today.
I get the soundbite roster about two minutes before the show starts.
That's when I found out what it was.
So here it is.
Last night, Sharpton, I guess, calls his show Politics Nation.
And he had Jonathan Cape Part, an editorial writer for the Washington Post on, as his guest.
No greater defender of racial harmony than Rush Lumbaugh also brought in race today.
Jonathan, let me show you what he said.
Oh, boy.
What's next, folks?
A cartoon on MSNBC showing Herman Cain with huge lips eating a watermelon.
What are they going to do next?
The racial stereotypes that these people are using to go after Herman Cain.
What is the one thing that it tells us?
Well, it tells us who the real racists are.
Yeah, but it tells us that Herman Cain is somebody.
Don't you see?
We cannot have a black Republican running for the office of president.
We can't have one elected.
We can't have an Hispanic.
The left owns those two groups.
Now it's time for Sharpton to respond.
This is what Cookie thought was funny.
Now, aside from the fact that Mr. Lumbaugh is the one that has done things against President Obama with songs like Proper Negro and all of kinds of things, and he has this imaginary MSNBC story when we have real racial derogatory references that he's made and others on the right about the president.
Proper Negro.
Proper Negro.
Now, this is interesting.
No, it's Rush Lombard.
Rush Lombard is the one who's done things against Obama with songs like The Proper Negro.
Now, he's obviously confusing with The Magic Negro, but it's a window to his mind.
Resist we much.
Resist we much.
Here's Jonathan Capart with his theory on all this.
The thing that galls me about Rush Limbaugh and Colzer suddenly showing concern about all this is like, why is all of a sudden this concern, y'all?
After years of stereotyping and derision and putting down African Americans and people of color, why suddenly are you rallying around the defense of this one man?
Now, this is an editorial writer for the Washington Post.
Jonathan Capart.
You ever heard of Clarence Thomas, Mr. Capart?
You ever heard of Thomas Sowell?
You ever heard, I mean, this idea that we are rallying around this one black guy.
Why?
Why are we rallying with all the racism that we've been exhibiting over the years?
Why all of a sudden are we rallying around this guy?
This is an editorial writer for the Washington Post.
Here's Ann Calder.
She was on Maude Behar's show on Headline News last night.
A friend Rush Limbaugh, didn't he call Obama the Magic Negro?
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
The Magic Negro.
It comes from both sides.
It was the title of an article in the LA Times.
He was quoting the title.
That's what it comes from.
Didn't he say also that he was an affirmative action president?
They're always asking.
I don't know.
Let me see your grades.
Let me see your show.
Invite him on.
I don't know.
You're bringing up stuff that I don't know.
I happen to remember the Magic Negro.
Now you're going into stuff I've never even heard before that someone else said that I never heard him say.
She's saying, I'm here to talk about me.
Not anybody, why are you asking me about Limbaugh?
The Magic Negro thing came from the LA Times.
Behar didn't even hear that.
She's a total idiot.
She didn't even hear this.
He called him affirmative action.
They don't want to know the truth.
They're not interested in because the lies that they've constructed for themselves are just much too easy to adhere to.
And then last night on the last word, Lawrence O'Donnelly had Tom Brokaw on.
Brokaw's got a new book called A Time of Our Lives, A Conversation About America.
And O'Donnell said, you know, one of the first to drag race into this coverage loudly was Rush Limbaugh yesterday on his show.
And I found Rush Limbaugh in your book in a surprising entry where you write that Rush Limbaugh took the airwaves to declare me a self-hating liberal.
Now, with much of what Rush says, he can never figure out what he means.
Did you have any idea what Rush meant?
No, I think he maybe has used that on a couple of occasions.
I said, I wouldn't have got my first job in Omaha or my second job in Atlanta, or I wouldn't have been hired by the network if my skin pigmentation had been one shade darker.
And when I said that, Rush described me on the air as a self-hating liberal.
And I say in the book, I go on to say that Rush, of all people, should know that people like us who make a very good living talking about ourselves cannot be self-hating.
We think we're grand, and I count him chief among those.
He at least is an original.
Many wannabe Rushes out there that are looking for any opening and any opportunity.
Okay, so there's Broca talking about the book, right?
I remember that.
I call him a self-hating liberal.
We've got the bite coming up here in just a second.
But they went on, O'Donnell said, look, one more quote from the book about Rush because he represents one side of the polarization in the country.
You say that Rush earned his fortune creating an enormous audience of the faithful or ditto heads, as they like to be called.
They worship in the altar of Limbaugh's appreciating, never questioning his researching.
Do you feel that there's partisan, absolutely, never questioning one's assumptions in today's politics?
Listen to that question.
Here's the question Brokaw was asking it.
Do you think that there's partisan, absolutely, never questioning one's assumptions in today's politics?
There's a less possibility of hearing something that might change your mind from the other side.
Rush, as I say, was at least an original.
He was there first.
He made it clear about who he was.
I remember four years ago, or maybe it was eight years ago, he was questioning the conservative credentials of Dick Cheney.
I was driving down the Florida turnpike, wide-eyed, listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about whether or not Dick Cheney was a true conservative.
He obviously is a very powerful voice in the American political culture, and we have no question about where he stands.
But then, as I say, there are a lot of Rush wannabes.
And then across the political spectrum on the left, you'll find a lot of people who don't want to hear any ideas if they possibly come from right of center in some fashion.
No, it's, well, it is.
I know.
We do our best to keep up.
A lot of wannabes.
A lot of wannabes.
He's going out of his way here.
No, no, he didn't slam me.
He's going out of the way.
There's begrudging acknowledgement there.
So let's go back.
It was November 5th, 2008.
By the way, I don't remember questioning Cheney's conservatism.
I'm not say too much on this program.
And in so many varied circumstances, I'm not going to sit here and deny it.
It could have been a parody or joke or a moment of satire.
I don't remember it.
And I can't think of a reason why I would have questioned Cheney's conservatism, but never know.
this this uh november 5th 2008 and uh yeah from this program brokaw was hosting meet the press at the time what are you laughing at what Well, I can't, I can't think of it, I don't I.
It doesn't occur to me to be critical of Cheney for a lack of conservatism, that just.
But as I say uh, utter a lot of words here in many different circumstances, satire and parody, and who knows, I mean it's as close to a flat-out denial as anything in the world I would deny.
But i'm curious about that, said he.
Heard it.
He's on a Florida Turnpike.
Okay again, november 5th 2008.
If my skin had been one pigment darker, none of that would have happened.
He would not have gotten a second chance.
If his skin was one pigment darker, I mean I I, this is this self-bloathing.
Self-loathing is just, you're right, it's breathtaking to behold.
If Tom Brokaw had been one pigment darker, he'd have just been Ed Bradley.
He could have been president for crying out loud.
If he just went.
One pigment dark, Ed Bradley could have been Tom Bradley could have been Doug Wilder, could have been any number of people.
One pigment dark one, he's making it out here.
If he had been one pigment darker, he would have been total, miserable failure.
And it was this.
I had the same reaction uh, to that as when I heard Phil Donahue say, Phil Donahue was just felt all guilty because of where he was born.
He kept talking about the accident of his birth and and on his show Phil Donahue said if he'd have been born just 100 miles further south and have been in Mexico or whatever and who knows what happened to him.
And I don't understand the thinking of constantly going through life with all this guilt, particularly over something you have no control over.
But I think that is the source of the guilt, interestingly enough.
But I was.
I was floored.
Brokaw actually was saying one pigment darker and he would not have had his career.
Uh, and I just history does not bear that out.
You like that line could have been Ed Bradley.
It's funny he didn't tell Lawrence O'donnell about that line.
It could have been Ed Bradley, could have been Tom Bradley.
Could have been Doug Wilder.
Any, uh any number of uh people like I got to take a break here, folks.
We're way long.
I will be back after this, don't go away.
You know, it's just pointed out to me folks, that uh, that Tom Brokaw in one of those soundbites saying that um, he couldn't be self-loathing because he, like me, would spend a career uh, talking about himself and and do that.
You can't possibly hate yourself.
You got to think you're grand.
I thought Brokaw was reading the news.
All those years he's talking.
He just said here he's Talking about himself.
All those years.
I thought he was a news guy.
It just goes to show how you can misunderstand people.
And one other thing, I meant to mention this earlier here.
We at 2ifbytea.com are running a little contest.
This is not our next big promotion.
We're just going to have a little fun here.
We want you to create your own 30-second 2F by T commercial.
Video.
Go to 2IFBT.com and look at all the rules and regulations here and the prizes.
There are three winners that we will select.
First prize is first place is a 55-inch Sony flat screen TV.
Second prize, a 15-inch MacBook Pro laptop, and six cases of 2F by T.
And there's a third prize thrown in there too.
Your submissions have to be 30 seconds in length.
The commercial should have a theme, history meets modern day.
Two if by tea, one if by land, two if by tea.
We're looking for creation.
We might even end up using one of these commercials that our winners produce someday as an actual commercial.
We're just doing this to have a little fun with this.
The tagline, you have to mention the tagline once in your commercial.
From tea to shining tea.
You must have that line in your commercial.
Just go to 2ifbytea.com and look at the YouTube commercial contest.
Everything that you need to know about it is listed there.
Timeframes, what you have to do, what your best odds are of winning, what the requirements are, what the prizes are, and so forth.
Just to have some fun with it.
2FbyT.com, the YouTube commercial contest.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away here, folks.
Let me give you some tips.
If you're going to participate in the Create a 30-second TV commercial for 2FBT.com, things just that spring to my creative mind.
2IF by T, the way T ought to be.
Let's take off of my book.
A tea you will revere.
Because I am rush revere on the label.
You see the taste is revolutionary.
Any number of ways to play this.
We got a commercial already.
Somebody created a commercial with their two cats singing a song about the tea.
It's hilarious.
That was something to have fun with, and you might win some cool prizes if you emerge victorious in this.
There are three different winners.
We will see you tomorrow, revved up and ready to go again, folks.
▲
Export Selection