All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
November 14, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Ladies and gentlemen, you're very much aware.
I never make this program about me.
Everybody else does that.
I never do.
But I have to tell you, remember way, way, way, way back.
When this Benghazi thing first came up, I compared it to Watergate, and I said it was worse than Watergate.
Nobody died at Watergate.
That is now popping up all over the place out there.
People comparing this Benghazi thing to Watergate.
Also, yesterday, I made a...
And a lot of people are.
You know, here we've got four dead Americans, and we still do not have an explanation for this.
And it's morphed into a sex scandal involving socialites and who knows whatever else.
And of course it's titillating, it's a great distraction, but it isn't, it isn't getting us any answers to anything that really matters terms of national security.
Of course, the big question, what did the president know when did he know it?
By the way, greetings, Rush Limbaugh here, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
So the reason I'm I'm leading with this is just a few minutes ago, Senator McCain and Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayatt, the uh uh senator from New Hampshire, had a press conference in which they called for a select Senate committee to investigate what happened in Benghazi.
And I saw Lindsey Graham, he was on Greta last night, and uh he made the same pitch.
Now remember the Republicans are in the minority on this.
So I see it's a request for select committee to find out what happened.
He said, Well, we don't want the House Committee doing this and the Senate committee doing this, and some other committee, there's three different ways you could go with this.
He said, Let's pool our resources, let's have one select committee of members of the House and Senate, both parties, and let's dig into this.
So far, not one Democrat has reacted to this proposal, not one Democrat has reacted to the idea.
And it was fascinating to listen to the questions that Graham Nestee and Kelly Ayatt and McCain got today.
It was it was well, I overused the word fast.
It was it wasn't fast.
In fact, it was utter utterly predictable.
Most of the question, now the the reporters were not mic.
So I had to sit here and I had to jack up my audio potentiometer to full gain.
The volume control.
I have a first class radio telephone license for the FCC.
I know what a potentiometer is.
That's what we insiders call the volume.
I jacked up my potentiometer to full gain.
That means all the way up.
And even at that, because of my hearing disability, I was having trouble hearing what these report, but I heard enough.
And it was it was funny, actually, most of the questions from the news media were poo-pooing the need for this.
The media said, Well, what are you talking about worse than Watergate?
What are you talking about?
Come on, you know, you guys, this is just I mean, they didn't say this, but you could it was sour grapes.
You guys are just trying to still stick it to our wonderful president with your stupid little committee here.
You guys just can't accept the reality that you lost.
And they didn't say that, but but that was the that was the tone of this.
And I remember the days, folks, when the media used to be curious about this kind of stuff.
And when there are Republican presidents, of course there are, when there's a Republican president and there's a picture of a bunch of terrorists being made in the you know, position themselves a pyramid in their underwear, then all hell breaks loose.
And we need 15 committees, and we need the attorney general, and we need the New York Times and everybody investigate how the hell that could happen.
And we got rumors of flushing the Koran down the toilet of Club Gitmore.
We're gonna stop everything and pursue that.
But four dead Americans and Benghazi, and by the way, these senators are pretty good.
They keep focusing on Susan Rice, how they're gonna do everything they can to oppose her nomination to be Secretary of State, they won't be able to stop it.
But they're gonna make a big show of it.
And they say, look, she goes out.
Kelly Ayat made the point, you don't go on five shows unless you ask to appear on them.
It's not like she minding your own business and got the got the phone calls from all five network Sunday morning shows.
Say, hey, can you come on?
You on all five, you're calling and you're asking.
And that means you've got something you want to say.
And what did she say?
She said it was a video.
And these guys, Gramn Nestee and McCain.
McCain actually got mad.
It was kind of.
Somebody asked him a question.
I really caught a little bit of it.
McCain said, with all due respect, that's that's the dumbest question I've ever heard.
We're talking about socialites here.
I mean, she's four dead Americans.
Socialites.
What?
And then the guy interrupted him.
And McCain said, well, anyway, you just you want to hear what I say?
You want me to answer the question?
You just want to keep talking.
It's your choice.
You tell me.
So I cranked up the potentiometer even more.
I'm really trying to hear what's going on with this.
Because it's not often that you see McCain jump down the throat of a media person.
Normally he's jumping down a different orifice.
And this guy was jumping down this guy's throat.
Look at Brian's in there.
Oh no, he didn't say that, did he?
We got 35 seconds to delete this.
Do we really want to stick with it?
Everything is cool.
I just, I do.
I remember, I remember when the news media used to be curious about these kinds of things, but they never are when there's a Democrat president.
Now these reporters, again, they didn't mic themselves.
So you really, people watching this could faintly hear a voice, but it was hard to hear the question.
But apparently, somebody compared Susan Rice's statements blaming the videos to Condoleezza Rice being wrong about Iraq having weapons and mass destruction.
I kid you not.
One of the reporters said, Well, you come on, you guys.
So Susan Rice got it wrong about the video.
What about Condi and Weapons and Masters?
I mean, it's still.
They're still running the campaign.
They are still doing everything they can to dismiss to depress to defeat Republicans.
It was comical to watch this.
It's gotten to the point now that it's just patently absurd.
It's I don't know what people are expecting.
But with this administration and with the media and so, but it's going to get worse than it's ever been.
You just need to steal yourself for that.
So anyway, this is what passes for hard-hitting investigative journalism in Washington these days.
They make a point about Susan Rice.
Well, you don't, you don't go on five shows unless you ask to be there.
And all three of these senators made it clear that Susan Rice was dead wrong.
Either she had been informed and didn't know what she was saying was wrong, or she was lying.
They didn't say lying, they said misleading on purpose.
And the media sprang to Susan Rice's defense.
And then a reporter objected to the Benghazi attack being compared to Watergate.
I mean, these guys are up there making their pitch here for select committee to look into this.
And at every point they make, the media is arguing with them.
Why not compare them?
This is Watergate.
I mean, this what was the driving question of Watergate?
What did the president know when did he know it?
Is that not the driving question of this?
Not just what did he know and when did he know it about Benghazi, but what did he know and when did he not know it about about Petraeus?
And his affair.
Believe it than nobody told Obama, but they're steadfastly maintaining little Jay Carney was out there again yesterday.
Oh, you got to check at the FBI.
I don't know what their procedures are for informing people.
You mean the president didn't know?
No, he didn't know, he didn't care.
He was playing golf.
He was in Las Vegas at a fundraiser.
Why why why should the president know about this?
He's having an affair.
It's what we Democrats do.
Why are you so hot to trot a bit?
Well, Petraeus is a Republican.
Well, maybe he's a Republican With Bush, but he's he's he's Obama's CIA guy, so it's not really a Republican anymore.
So I don't know what you're talking about.
Since he's Obama's CIA director, you can say Petraeus is Democrat now.
Oh, does that mean he's entitled to have an affair?
Well, it doesn't matter to us.
Nobody told us about it.
Any big deal.
What national security secrets were released?
That this babe down in down in down in Tampa thinks she's a consul general?
Well, what's the harm?
Did you hear about this?
This no, no, she well, she's off the reservation, but you have to ask yourself a question here.
Jill Kelly, the Tampa Bay socialite, apparently didn't like all the media camped outside on her front yard, one of the two foreclosed properties.
Now, apparently somebody at McDill, you know, she was a she was had some sort of relationship with with the military there.
Groupie like is what it was.
I mean, every institution has these people, and they named her an honorary consul general.
Just when they gave her a little piece of paper that came out of a fax machine, it says honorary consul general.
And the problem is she believed it.
She calls 9-11s.
By the way, I'm an honorary consul general.
Do you think you get the diplomatic corps on this to help out?
And she was dead serious.
And of course, the 9-11 guy said, uh, sure, right on.
We'll uh take care of that.
Sure, she says I have inviolability.
I'm not violatable because I'm a consul general.
You know, it reminds me, James Brown was once given the ceremonial title of the ambassador's soul.
Nixon might have done it.
Somebody at the UN, I don't know, backwarded James Brown's heyday.
His wife, some weeks later, was caught doing 80 in a 50 mile an hour zone near Augusta in Georgia.
And they pulled her over and she said, I have diplomatic immunity.
My husband's the ambassador of Seoul.
And she meant it.
So anyway.
The media at this press conference today is objecting to the comparison of Benghazi to Watergate.
Now, Watergate was about some third rate burglary.
It did not involve the death of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.
That did not happen at Watergate.
Nobody died at Watergate.
Now, Petraeus is going to testify.
Well, is today Wednesday or Thursday?
Wednesdays, and Petraeus is testifying Friday or tomorrow.
No, don't look it up.
It doesn't matter.
He's either he's testifying today or tomorrow.
I got folks, if by the way, there's all kinds of of uh um uh hope that what Petraeus is gonna do is gonna say, well, Benghazi was not about the video.
Benghazi was not about what the president says.
If folks, if you think that Petraeus is gonna go tell a different story, I have to take a break here.
And Crowdhammer, by the way, play a soundbite from him because Krauthammer made the claim.
We alluded to it too on the program yesterday, the regime is holding this scandal over Petraeus' head for favorable Benghazi testimony.
And we speculated that might be happening uh yesterday.
And then what was it?
The uh Jack Keene, who's this Fox general guy, he's a general on Fox, he's a consultant, he's one of their strategists, he's a one of their many experts.
Apparently he was one of Petraeus' mentors.
And they asked him today, what do you what do you think?
What do you think Petraeus is gonna say this?
That's Friday.
And it's by the way, it's closed door testimony, so we're we're not gonna find out what he said.
It's closed door, we're not gonna find out what he says.
Um, but but but General Keene said, no, I don't expect him to say anything other than what he said.
He's a man of integrity.
Well, what's he said?
That was the video.
Anyway, I gotta take a break.
Put all this in perspective.
I'm just, folks, this is the kind of thing if you think Petraeus is gonna go in, and I don't know that we'll ever find out or anytime soon.
But if you think Petraeus is gonna go in and say the White House told me to say that it was the video, but I went over there and I did my own investigation and I find out that video had nothing.
If you think that's going to be his testimony, you still haven't gotten your arms around who we're dealing with here in Obama and the Democrats and the media and that whole complex.
And we will be back.
When Petraeus is going to testify, NBC and Fox say Friday, ABC says, Fox says Friday, everybody else says Thursday, then there's a Senate in the House, and then some say that John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, by the way, will uh conduct the the Senate offsite behind closed doors test.
I don't even know, folks, why Petraeus' testimony is relevant.
The president's got a press conference of a little bit over an hour.
He's going to answer everybody's questions about this, and it'll be over.
No, no, no.
I'm I'm kidding.
I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get a question about it.
If he gets if if let's let's play a little game, a little prediction.
If Obama gets questions about Benghazi, my bet is that the question will be what do you think of these sneaky Republicans, Graham and McCain, who want to appoint a select committee to look into what happened to the video filmmaker.
Does anybody really think the media is going to ask Obama what really happened in Benghazi?
The media is there to cover for the guy.
The media is there to protect him.
Whatever questions he gets about Benghazi are going to be softballs and setups that are designed to have him sweep it under the rug as far as most people are concerned, so that whatever comes afterwards is made to look about a like a bunch of sore losers,
small time nitpickers who want their little select committee to look into it as though they really care about four dead Americans, but we know that all they want to do is nail our young, wonderful president.
And so everything they ask Obama will be a setup so that he can answer it, be done with it.
He'll do it very professoriely and very compassionate, filled, and so forth.
And then anything that follows.
Yes.
Republicans will be portrayed as sore losers.
Here's what Crowdhammer said.
By the way, before Crowdhammer, Bill Kristol, noted foreign policy expert, uh leader of the neocons, Bill Kristol on Fox last night said that he talked to somebody, he didn't name names, that he talked to somebody who told him that at the end of Petraeus' testimony on the 14th or 15th, whenever it was of September, that somebody said, Okay, well, what happened?
What did you say?
Petraeus said, Do you want to know what really happened or you want the official line?
Now, Crystal didn't mention any name, so we don't know who it was that told Crystal that he had asked that question to Petraeus.
And then Crauthammer, this was on a special report with Brett Bear last night in the Fox News Channel.
He understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on.
He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job.
And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.
And that brings us to the ultimate issue.
And that is his testimony on September 13.
That's the thing that connects the two scandals, and that's the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant.
Okay, so as far as Krauthammer is concerned, the regime, the Obama regime held a scandal over Petraeus' head for favorable Benghazi testimony.
But now, now Petraeus has resigned or been pushed out, whichever's the case.
And so now the theory is that Petraeus is free to tell the truth.
And so his testimony on September 13th, which was, by the way, it was a spontaneously combustible little protest out there brought about by the filmmaker.
Petraeus did say that.
Then he traveled to Benghazi himself, did his own investigation.
Now he's been fired or allowed to resign because somebody who knew about this affair for a long time finally went public with it.
So that, you know, it's a reasonable thing to think he might have been blackmailed over this.
And it's reasonable to think that he might have wanted to get out from under the blackmail by resigning.
And so now everybody's waiting with baited breath for his testimony tomorrow and or Friday before the Senate and or House in their off-site closed door committees.
And there's a bunch of conventional wisdom that's that sprung to life that says he's going to go in there, he's going to go in there and he's going to tell everybody that it wasn't the video.
He's going to go in there, he's going to tell everybody that it was not spontaneous combustion protest.
He's going to go in there and tell them it was Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda was there and they were building up and they planned the attack, and it was for a whole bunch of reasons, but the video had nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry.
Um that's not what I think is going to happen.
I just don't think it works that way.
I mean, a lot of people are holding out hope for honesty and integrity and the American way and doing the right thing.
But would somebody tell me where that's happening in our government?
Somebody tell me where anywhere that can be relied on?
By anybody at the government level.
I don't see it.
And I think if they've still got something to hold over Petraeus, if they want him to tell the story about the video, that's what he's going to tell.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Folks, let me let me make another point to you about Petraeus and his testimony either today and or tomorrow and or Friday.
Because I really am unsure.
There are different, and it doesn't matter, it's one of the next two days.
If Petraeus goes in there and says anything different, what he said on September 13th, do you know the world of hurt that he's in?
What did he say on September 13th or for whenever the testimony was, he said it was the video.
He said it was an out-of-control mob, spontaneous combustion protest because of the video.
Okay, now let's say that he goes in tomorrow, and he, if if he doesn't say exactly what he said to Congress back in September, then he's going to get the question, were you lying then or are you lying now?
And if he says, let's let's play the game.
Let's say he goes in and changes the testimony.
Um I was here in September, and I was mistaken.
Uh that was not uh video that made the protests happen.
It was not the video that was at the root of the death of the Americans.
Bang the gavel crowd goes, now, General General, you said that it was the video.
Well, yes, but I have done my own investigation, um, Senator, and uh found that I was wrong back on the we all were wrong.
It's uh clearly it wasn't the video.
Well, then the first stars flying.
So, General, are we to believe you now or are we to believe you then?
General, you were just caught red-handed having an affair.
You're a man of obviously big character flaws, and now you're changing your story.
So what are we supposed to believe?
Who knows what to believe with you anymore, John?
Do you think Petraeus is gonna go through that?
I know some of you, but Russia, he's a man of honor, and he will stand up for what's right in there and say, Well, even if he does, I'm gonna tell you they're gonna destroy him and it'll leak.
You have to understand what's going on here, folks.
There is a circle the wagon operation around Barack Obama that nobody's gonna penetrate.
That is abundantly clear.
The Democrats, the media, they're not gonna allow this thing to become Watergate.
They're not gonna allow this circle of protection to be penetrated in any way, shape, manner, or form.
And I just I'll remind you, you go back to Petraeus' testimony before Congress before the surge in Iraq.
Move on.org is running a full page of the New York Times, General Betrayus.
Hillary Clinton called him a liar before he had uttered a word.
What a Hillary Hillary said that you have to suspend reality in order to listen and believe Petraeus.
So they've they've already indicated they have no problem whatsoever calling the guy a liar.
Hillary's in Australia.
Hillary's in Australia with she's sipping wine, and she's over there with uh with Panetta.
And you know who else is in Australia?
The Waz.
Steve Wozniak.
He's establishing residence in Australia.
Look, I think there's some people know things we don't.
Hillary's in Australia, uh, Panetta is in Australia, and then they're not on their way back.
Now, Wozniak establishing residence.
There's a home in uh in the Bay Area up for sale.
Says he hopes he's able to maintain a home in California, but he's not sure.
In addition to all this, folks, Obama today, it's amazing the first term is being repeated.
Obama's got a big confab with a whole bunch of big time CEOs.
He got Jeffrey Imelt in there, the IBM CEO, uh Ken Chenault of American Express, and the media breathlessly reporting this.
Oh, yes, the president taking job creation very seriously.
The president meeting with American CEOs, big business guys to work together with everybody to get this economy going and once again to produce and create jobs, blah, blah, blah.
I heard Charlie Gasparino on Fox this morning describe this meeting in the first administration, and it happened within a week or two after Obama was immaculated.
And he said it's nothing but a photo-up.
He said in in 2009, when Obama met with these same CEOs, he spoke with a teleprompter.
When he finished, he went around the room, they said whatever they wanted to say, and the meeting was over.
There was no discussion, there was no dialogue.
It was a photo up with Obama speaking to these CEOs via teleprompter.
And it looks like the same thing is being repeated.
So anyway, look, I'm I'm just trying to approach this uh realistically.
I've got a couple sound bites just from the press conference.
McCain and uh and and Kelly Ayat and Lindsey Graham had their press conference, and I got a couple of sound bites, 21 and 22.
And here's one of the questions.
It was very tough to hear this.
To what degree, if any, do you think the resignation of General Petraeus will impact the work that you can do?
Uh and by invoking Watergate and Iran-Contra, does that affect how people will view the process that you're trying to affect here?
Watergate, nobody died.
In Iran-Contra, nobody died.
I think it's very clear that there will be some resistance.
There was resistance to the 9-11 Commission that Senator Lieberman and I had the resolution of.
There was resistance to Watergate Commission.
There was resistance to Iran-Contra.
The party in power never likes to have a select committee.
But I'm hopeful that the American people will demand it.
And I am guardedly optimistic that they will achieve that goal.
The families deserve it, among other people.
He's uh guardedly optimistic.
Any any you really think that the Democrats are gonna agree to a select committee on this?
There's no well, folks.
Again, the the the whole the whole circle in the wagon around Obama here.
The wagons.
There is not gonna be one kernel of truth of what happened to Benghazi come out of any of this.
It ain't going to happen.
I mean, within two weeks of Obama being re-elected, ain't they gonna open the doors?
And the floodgates for people to go in and get to Obama isn't gonna happen.
Next question.
Senator, do you think there's potentially a greater national security threat in apparently thousands of pages of classified documents ending up on the personal computer of a Tampa socialite as a friend of the head of the CIA of secret covert email accounts involving the head of the CIA and a top general in Afghanistan and the fact that the FBI agent stepped out of the chain of command, apparently went to a House Republican leader rather than anybody else.
You put all that together, you think that's potential greater national security threat than what you're talking about at Benghazi.
Well, I say with great respect.
That's one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard.
Okay.
There's four dead Americans.
There's four dead Americans.
Not a social act, not a social act.
I'm answering your question.
Okay, do you want me to answer your question?
You want to interrupt.
Which do you want?
Okay.
There's four dead Americans.
The lives of other Americans were put in jeopardy.
This is a matter of four dead Americans.
I think that the other issue raised is very serious.
And I think it deserves a thorough and complete investigation.
Stop, stop, stop, stop.
See here's what's happening.
McCain, Gramnesty, I select committee into Benghazi, House, Senate, put them all together.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
There are four dead Americans.
Media guy said, wait a minute.
You really think that is more important than finding out about Petraeus and the affair and the emails between the general and the socialite.
And McCain says, Oh, do we expect that's the stupidest question?
Nobody died.
But the but the media really tried to say that Benghazi, that's chump change compared to what happened here.
You're just trying to distract from it.
I got a quick timeout.
We'll be back and move on here in the EIB network right after this, folks.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to repeat something as a as a helpful hint here that I said earlier this week that is obvious now.
It's always been the case, it's been the case for years.
We keep hoping that something's going to change, but it isn't.
No dispute will ever be resolved until the Democrats win it.
So if you have some hope or prayer that there's going to be some huge treasure trove of gotcha Obama from Petraeus' testimony, it isn't going to happen.
A, he's not going to commit perjury.
He's not going to say something different than he said the last time.
And B. Whatever they've got on him, they've got on him.
They were able to kick him out of office.
They were able to blackmail him, do whatever with this affair business.
They kept it.
They knew what was going on.
They held it in check till they needed it.
But the idea that that somehow Obama's going to be made to take the hit on this Benghazi thing, it isn't going to happen.
The Democrats get away with it.
That's the lesson.
No dispute will be finished and resolved until the Democrats win it.
You just may as well, for the foreseeable future, resign yourself to that.
Now, Obama's meeting with the CEOs.
This is being portrayed as Obama wanting to have dialogue.
He really wants to talk to these guys.
He wants to learn from them.
He wants to work together with them in order to come up with mutually agreeable policies, because he's open to anything going to work.
Instead, what's going to happen is Obama's bringing the guys in there.
He's speaking from a teleprompter, and he's going to read them the way world works.
He's going to tell them the way life is.
He's going to tell them what their future is.
He's going to let them say whatever they want to say, and the meeting's going to be over, and that's it.
And what's he gonna?
If you wondered what he meant during the campaign, get your revenge by voting.
This may be it.
Obama is taking a hard line with Congressional Republicans heading in a negotiations over the year-in fiscal cliff.
He's making no opening concessions.
He's Calling for more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider.
In fact, Obama is now claiming he wants to double the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy from what he intended during the campaign.
And then maybe not quite double, but 1.6 trillion dollars.
That's the tax increase on corporations and the wealthy.
Then this is the new tone, the new bipartisan spirit that he promised.
And what the American people voted for.
Obama taking a hard line.
So these CEOs are being brought in today to be told what's what.
Obama plans to open talks using his most recent budget proposal, which uh which sought to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy by 1.6 trillion over the next decade.
That's double the sum that Boehner offered Obama during secret debt negotiations in 2011.
So Boehner offered to play ball.
We're just learning that Boehner offered to play ball on new revenue.
800 billion.
Obama has come back in this new spirit of bipartisanship and a new tone that he promised us during the campaign that the American people voted for.
And he's now said, you know, screw that 800 billion Boehner.
Screw you and screw the 1.6 trillion now.
What are you going to do about it?
I won.
Oh, you want a select committee on Bengal?
Go right ahead.
Go and ask for it.
I've already talked to Harry Reid.
You think you're going to get the first base on that select committee?
Yeah, Petraeus is coming up testifying.
You really think he's going to testify against me?
You guys keep on dreaming all you want.
But I just tell you, you better get ready.
1.6 trillion, and that's for openers.
And then the next thing I'm going to do, if you go to the end, this is a Washington Post story.
If you uh if you head down to the end of the story, in addition to raising taxes, Obama promised to cut $340 billion from health care programs.
Exactly what the Republicans said during the campaign.
We told you he's going to cut health care.
He's going to take it out of Medicare and Medicaid.
And Democrats said they're lying.
How dare they lie about our president?
He would never cut health care.
It's his bill.
He's cutting health care by $340 billion.
All these fact checkers told us that cuts to health care programs are a Republican lie.
As is saving one trillion dollars from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's a lie.
Those savings, if you even call them that, I don't even concede that, but they were factored in long time ago.
And even in this story, even in this story, guess who is blamed for the current economic plight that we are in?
Bush.
George W. Bush is blamed even in this story.
The reason Obama has to take these drastic measures is because of the irresponsibility of the Bush administration.
So everything that you and I suspected that Obama would do is happening.
Massive tax increases.
That will totally shut down economic activity.
This 1.6 trillion dollars in taxes on corporations and the wealthy is in addition to the Obamacare taxes.
Obama has been pressing to let the George Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year for the wealthiest 2%.
Jay Carney suggested that even the revenue generated by letting those tax cuts end would not be enough to tame the national debt and re No kidding, of course it isn't.
You know how much money is raised by eliminating the Bush tax cuts?
$824 billion.
We are now looking, ladies, at our first trillion plus dollar deficit.
So all during the campaign, we shouted our lungs out.
We shouted from the mountaintop.
You can not reduce the deficit.
You can't even make a dent in the deficit by letting the Bush tax rates expire.
There's not, we're not talking enough money.
You can't.
In fact, if you confiscate all the money the rich have, over a million dollars, you run the government for six weeks and then you're out of money.
That's how much money we're spending.
That's how much money that we are just watching go out the door and how much money we're borrowing.
And now the regime admits it.
Jay Carney, even the revenue generated by letting the Bush tax cuts end would not be enough.
That's why we have to raise them even more.
It's exactly what was said during the campaign.
It's exactly what we said.
But the bottom line is, folks, this has nothing to do with generating or gaining more revenue.
Because it won't.
This is this is going to shut down the engine that produces and creates wealth, which creates revenue.
This is nothing other than punishment.
This is this is the revenge that Obama was talking about the campaign.
This is punishment of the rich, punishment of the successful.
Because the rich in his world defined is 200 grand a year and up.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence is in the can, and it's on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, the virtual version up and running at rushlimbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection