All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 28, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
November 28, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, isn't this typical?
I mean, right when the show starts.
And by the way, welcome back, folks.
Good to be back with you here, Rushlin bought the EIB network.
Excellence in broadcasting three straight hours, dead ahead.
Telephone number 800 28282, if you want to be on the program.
And the email address L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
I mean, I right when the program starts, one minute before the program starts, there goes Obama.
Has Obama been on TV the last three or four days?
Anybody's seen him?
I look don't ask me.
I mean, I literally don't know.
So tell me, have you seen Obama on TV?
So one minute before this program starts, the guy goes out there and now he's explaining I don't know what.
I'm gonna have to wait for somebody to tell me what he's talking about.
All I can do is r well, no, I don't I don't know that it is the usual stuff.
He's making a tax proposal.
He wants to do something right now and then move this fiscal cliff stuff later.
He wants to do something right now that involves giving everybody a tax cut, even the rich on the first two hundred and fifty thousand they make.
Their rate will not go up on the first two fifty.
Well, I'm glad he's mentioning that because that's a fundamental point I want to address today as we get into the program.
But he he wants to do something that'll give ninety-eight percent of the American people a tax cut right now, or at least no tax increase, and then and then lolly gag around for a while.
So right when the program starts just typical.
I mean, they even they pay such close attention, they know when I am first back from a vacation.
And make sure to try to thwart it.
Anyway, I was um I was thinking, folks, I I did take some time.
I took some time off while I was gone, but I did in the last couple of days start paying attention to stuff so I would be moderately prepared for the uh for the program today, and I've been watching the discussion of Susan Rice and what's happening in Egypt with uh with Morsi.
In fact, you know, I if I don't know if you notice this or not, but if Obama had an older brother, he'd look just like this Morsey guy.
Remember, he said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin.
If he had a I think if Obama had a brother, he'd look like this Morsi fellow.
Did we not call that?
How's that how's that outbreak of democracy working?
Remember they're calling the guy the pharaoh of Egypt and a couple hundred thousand people are back in Tariri Square protesting, and all we're missing is our old buddy from CNN Nick Robertson over there asking the people what they think of Obama's love and devotion for them.
Uh, well, maybe he'll be sent there anyway, and we'll have a new round of Nick Robertson sound bites.
But let's let's not think, folks, about Egypt being taken over by a Muslim extremist dictator who wants to be known as a modern-day pharaoh.
The real problem that we face today, and everybody knows it, is the overt racism and sexism of the Republicans who are still asking questions about Benghazi and Susan Rice.
By the way, the real thing about this Benghazi business and why there is a continued interest in it, and what the real unknown answer is, the the the question with the unknown answer.
You can talk all you want about Susan Rice going out lying about the video being responsible and all of that.
There are seven and a half hours where the president of the United States is not accounted for.
That's what this really all is as far as I'm concerned.
We have a dead ambassador, we have three other dead Americans, and in the midst of this attack, nobody knows where the president was.
I think that's the real question everybody has.
You know, why wasn't there a response?
Why wasn't there orders given?
Why wasn't this?
Why wasn't that real?
Where was was was was Obama even engaged?
And I mentioned this once a couple three weeks ago.
And uh and Snurdy says, Well, what do you mean?
You think he was asleep?
I don't know.
It could be something like it could be he zoned out, it could be he didn't want to be involved.
He could be said, handle it, I don't care.
But he wasn't engaged in this.
And that's why the seven and a half, eight hours, whatever it was of this attack, that's the real unknown answer.
Why were there no orders to respond?
Why was the fact that this place was under siege not a big deal?
Why was the fact that the ambassador was being in the process of being killed and three other Americans, where was the president?
That's and no, I'm not coming back singularly focused on Obama.
I just think if that's the subject, um uh uh Benghazi, I think that's one of the primary aspects of this whole thing is where was Obama.
That's what everybody really wants to know, and and beating around the um Bush to uh to try to get it, but you know, the what everybody's really concerned about, of course, is the racism and the sexism of the Republicans and how they are doing everything they can to be mean as they can to Susan Rice.
Anyway, the fiscal cliff, let me try to put this in perspective for you as well, uh, in terms of what this is really all about.
The fiscal cliff is theater.
Nothing more and nothing less.
It's a game of political chicken, folks, and it will result in a winner and a loser.
The media will act as judge.
It'll do everything in their power to influence the jury, which are the American people.
Obama's already gotten his name written in ink as the winner.
You understand that Obama is going to win the fiscal cliff.
But it's a game of theater.
There will not be any substantive entitlement reform.
There will not be any spending cuts because there never are.
There will be new enhancements to revenue with appropriate questions that people will not ask.
But none of this, none of this fiscal fiscal cliff stuff has anything to do with solving the budget problem or any other fiscal problem that we have.
The fiscal cliff and the fevered negotiations and the lame duck and everything going on.
Whatever Obama said just now, which I really want to find out, because I got the sense there's something new he was proposing, and if I'm wrong about that, I need to know quick.
Because he just, I mean, literally two minutes before the program began, he goes out there and starts this.
It's probably nothing new.
It's probably just more the same with a different different presentation.
Probably a whole bunch of uh meaningless focus on on protecting the middle class.
But anyway, this is not the fiscal cliff is not about long-term solutions to anything.
The fiscal cliff is not about solutions, period.
Not real solutions.
What we have here is political gamesmanship.
It is being played to secure power with the federal government in charge.
It's all about who can maneuver who to secure and come out of this with a greater hold on power.
It's not about solving anything budgetary.
I mean, you're gonna hear that it is.
You're gonna hear it's all about fixing the mess that we're in, but it's not about that.
Nobody's gonna fix the mess that we're in.
Nobody's going to do what it takes to fix the mess that we're in.
Obama is, I mean, he can feel it now.
He can feel, he's I mean, it's within his grasp an amount of power that a president of the United States has not had since FDR, and maybe even including FDR, and it's right there waiting to be grabbed, and he intends to grab it.
The Republicans will be fine with whatever they end up with.
In fact, tonight, I was gonna say, watching some of this stuff, try to get back in in uh focus back up to speed.
I got an idea For the Republicans.
Because it is it, you know, when you when you pull yourself away from here.
And when you when you uh speaking for myself, when I remove myself from the need to be of a certain mindset to do this program for three hours at the highest level I can possibly attain each and every hour.
When I remove myself from that and still stay in touch with what's going on, it's amazing to watch the Republicans beat themselves up.
By yesterday, actually by Monday, I the Republicans think that every Hispanic hates them and every every woman hates them.
Every minority hates them.
I think what the Republicans ought to, if they really want to get back in the good graces of everybody, just based on the way I hear them talking, the Republicans are to call a press conference.
You know what?
We don't even like ourselves either.
We hate us.
You know what else?
We are opposed to ourselves.
Now will you vote for us?
Because that seems to be the theme here.
That the problem in America is 200 some odd years.
And by the way, it's an instinct that I've had since the first days of Obama.
And it's taken hold.
It's taken hold in our education system.
It's taken hold in the pop culture.
The problem with America is its founding.
The problem with America is who founded it.
And the problem with America is why those people founded it the way they did.
This is an unjust and an immoral country.
It's a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic country.
And now we're going to change it.
And now we're going to make amends.
Now we're going to get even with all these people who've had all this power for so long to ignore people who they didn't like.
And now we're going to get even with those guys.
And it just so happens that the Republicans are the closest link that the Democrats have or can make with the evil founders of this country and the evil system that they set up.
The mean spirited, extremist, racist, sexist, bigoted system they set up called America.
It's time now to fix that.
It's time now to get even with all that.
In fact, there's a there was a guy, Goldfarb in the in the, I think it was the Washington Post.
Now it's amazing if you find the right stuff.
Now it's perfectly fine to tell the truth about Obama.
Yep, he's a redistributionist.
And what does that mean?
Santa Claus.
Now Obama is and always has been a guy who has seen this country as unfair and unjustly founded.
And he's always seen himself as the guy who's going to fix it.
And so they're on course now to do something drastic about income inequality.
Which, by the way, differs from wealth inequality.
They are two entirely different things.
And the reason why Warren Buffett is out there going on and on and on about supporting a tax rate 30, 35% on rich people, is because the income tax is the single greatest weapon government has to prevent the creation of wealth among individuals.
The income tax does not destroy wealth.
There is not a wealth tax, and you don't see anybody proposing one yet.
Yet, but you don't see Buffett, you don't see any rich guys proposing a wealth tax.
You see them proposing an income tax increase, which is designed to make sure that people keep less and less of what they earn so that they become less and less likely to amass and accrue wealth.
They've got theirs.
It doesn't matter.
And while they come out in favor of tax increases, income tax increases, they are buying love and good vibes and all kinds of support with the poor in the middle class who think that people like Buffett and Obama and the rest of them feel them.
Get them.
Understand them.
And so it's okay for Buffett to have what he has, and nobody's going to make a move to take his away from him.
But Buffett will join the movement to make sure that you never have a chance to acquire what he already has.
And that's the difference in a wealth tax and an income tax.
And income inequality is not wealth inequality, and make no mistake, nobody's making a move here to take money away from the super wealthy and give it away.
Not even Obama.
What they're doing is making sure that people who earn income today are not going to be able to keep enough of it to get wealthy.
That they will have to be forever dependent on government one way or another to get by.
Quick timeout, come back with much more after.
Well, no, I don't know I'm not, I'm not joking about snurdy one of the fiscal cliff.
The way to understand this is this is J.R. Ewing negotiating with Gilligan of Gilligan's Island.
With with J.R. Ewing meaning Democrats and Gilligan being a Republicans, not individuals.
That's where this is.
And it's what they're haggling about, if you if you really want to put this in terms that may be more easily understood, they're haggling over our private property.
We have an absolute fiscal disaster that is being blamed on us when they are the architects.
They're the people who spend all the money.
Now some of us are culpable because we demand the spending.
Some of us, not me, some of maybe you, but many others are have culpability because they demand some of that spending because they think they're going to get some of it.
But it's a spending side problem.
But this whole fiscal cliff thing is being done in such a way as to make as many people possible believe that it's the fault of people not paying enough in taxes.
We have a fiscal cliff because people are selfish.
Citizens, we have a fiscal cliff because the people in this country are selfish and are not paying enough in taxes.
And we have a fiscal cliff in this country because the rich are selfish and they're not paying enough taxes.
Let me give you a thought here before we go to the break.
This government has spent trillions alone in the war on poverty, redistribution, trillions overall since the mid-60s, we have spent trillions of dollars to fix all of these problems they do nothing but get worse, right?
Trillions.
How much are we talking about in a tax increase on the rich?
Billions.
84 billion, 100 billion, whatever it is.
Would somebody explain to me how raising taxes on people to the tune of 84 or 100 billion is going to matter when spending trillions prior to all this hasn't.
Trillions versus billions.
It is our private property that's being haggled over here.
And we will not have as much of it when they're finished.
And that's all you need to know about this.
That's all you need to know.
Our private property is up for grabs.
They're going to get more of it when this is all said and done.
And when that happens, we are still going to be blamed for the mess.
Back after this.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun already than a human being should be allowed to have.
And I do this each and every day.
Behind this, the prestigious and distinguished EIB golden microphone.
Now, over the weekend, a columnist in the New York Times by the name of Nicholas Kristof wrote a piece.
He's all upset about the electrical grid failing in the Northeast during Hurricane Sandy.
But that's not what made him mad.
What made him mad was the reliance That some people had on private generators.
He was upset about that.
That some people had them and other people didn't.
And here is here's the here's the short version.
According to David French at National Review, this is the short version of Christoph's piece.
Low tax rates on the rich plus a failure to deal with climate change equals a decaying infrastructure, which increases inequality amongst the people, and the wealthy are able to opt out of public services and public utilities.
And they're able to go get their own generators.
And this is not fair that some should have generators and others shouldn't.
And it's all because of climate change and all because of the rich and income inequality that some people had private generators and others didn't.
And he made a whole column about this.
Got to take a break.
But this is going somewhere, so don't go away.
I'm not kidding.
This guy, Nicholas Kristol, this is mainstream liberal opinion at the New York Times.
Peace over the weekend.
Upset about the electrical grid being insufficient, failing, being knocked out of power, not just during Hurricane Sandy, but primarily then, but at any other time it goes down.
That some people aren't affected by it.
They're able to go out and own private home generators to get through the outage while other people are unable to.
And he claims that the reason that this is possible is that tax rates on the rich have been too low, which means the rich have too much disposable income, and with that disposable income, they're able to go out and buy private generators that they really shouldn't be entitled to have.
It's not fair.
Now, as I go through all this, you keep in mind, based on the election results, the American people agree with this.
The American people signed on for this.
The American people, maybe by a couple, three million votes, whatever it was, 51 to 48%.
The American people agree with this.
You don't get points for getting close.
You don't get points for almost winning.
You don't get points for losing, but not by a landslide.
You'd be amazed.
The people of California voted to increase their own taxes.
They voted to raise taxes on themselves.
The people of California are voting for what is happening there.
And now we can say the people of this country are voting for what's happening here.
So when the country at large, so when Christoph says low taxes on the rich are to be opposed because they are able to go out and buy things like private home generators, so that they don't feel the electrical grid outage.
So it means we have to raise taxes and also the grid failed because we're not doing enough on global warming.
We're not raising taxes enough to deal with global warming.
We have failed to deal with climate change.
We don't have high enough taxes on the rich, and that means that our infrastructure is decaying, that there is a greater inequality of income among the people, and the real insult is that the wealthy are then able to opt out from public services.
Now, in the old days, not too long ago, I remember where this is the kind of thing that people aspired to.
People aspired to be successful to earn enough money to provide themselves an increasing standard of living, and this provided motivation and inspiration for others to follow.
Now, that's not the way it is in America anymore, and we're gonna have to come to understand that.
Success is not inspirational.
Success is not motivational.
Success makes you a target.
Success makes you an enemy.
Success means that you aren't playing fair.
And I'm not exaggerating.
At some point we're gonna have to understand what's happened here.
And it's not the Latino vote that caused us to lose the election, and it's not the single women under 30 vote.
And it's not all these other demographic things that resulted in Romney.
And us, the Republicans losing the presidential race.
Those are convenient excuses that are easy for the Republican Party to seem to address, which will not matter in the long run.
We are losing far more in that.
We are losing the American way of life.
The American way of life is now targeted.
The old standard American way of life is now seen as the big problem.
Because not everybody can share in it, not everybody has a fair shot at it, not everybody will ever be able to participate in it fully, and so it's unworthy, unjust, and should no longer be allowed, and that's where the people of this country are.
And you can sit there and tell me, no, Rush, no, they vote.
The election.
It's like Bill Parcells always says about an NFL team.
You are what your record is.
If you're four and seven, you are four and seven.
You're not a maybe ten and four.
You're four and seven, you're four and seven.
Your record is what you are.
The country is what it is.
The guy running for reelection made no bones about what he intends to do.
And he's certainly didn't hide what he intends to do for four years in the big picture.
He got re-elected.
Certain things, folks, we're just gonna have to that there is a deep resentment.
Maybe a way to illustrate this.
If in hurricane, say you lived in the Northeast, and if you had one of these private generators, did you tell anybody or did you try to keep people from finding out?
My guess is you shared the news with people you could trust and your friends, but you didn't want anybody else finding out.
Not for fear they come over and want to live with you for a while, but for fear that you don't want to make yourself target.
Am I right or am I right?
I'm always right.
Even when I think I'm wrong, I end up being right.
So we have a decaying infrastructure because we're not raising taxes enough on the rich to deal with climate change.
We're not raising taxes on the rich enough because they've got enough disposable income to go out and buy these private.
I mean, he wrote a whole column about this.
In the old days of America, you'd have a situation like this, and the focus of what's wrong with the public utility?
Why what what United States of America 2012, there's no reason to have a two-week outage after something like this.
But no, a two-week outage is totally understandable, and what's of note is that some people didn't have to endure it.
And that's not fair.
And we're gonna go after the people who didn't have to endure it, who found a way around it.
Look at all the things in this country that are blamed on the fact that the rich are not paying enough in taxes.
Look at everything that is being blamed on that.
Education, rich aren't paying enough taxes.
Uh poverty.
The war on poverty since LBJ in the mid-six, rich aren't paying enough taxes.
Whatever the problem, that is the Democrat's solution.
Raise taxes on the rich, and that won re-election.
So we have to conclude the majority of people also believe that.
Now we can sit here all day long and throw the logic of numbers at them, like I just did say, okay.
Uh look at Mr. Derelic citizen, Mr. Gullible Citizen is buying into all this.
We have spent trillions of dollars since the mid-60s, probably already lost them at that point.
We've spent trillions of dollars on wealth transfers.
We have redistributed income to the tune of seven trillion dollars since the sixties to eradicate poverty, and we haven't done it.
Same number of people, by virtue of percentage, are in poverty as when we started the program.
Trillions.
How much money we gonna raise by increasing taxes on the rich?
$84 billion, $110 billion, whatever.
Well, how is that going to work?
How is a hundred billion dollars in new revenue going to wipe out all of these inequities when trillions in 30 years hasn't done it?
And then you realize it's not about any of this.
It's not about wiping out poverty.
It's not about, in fact, folks, the fiscal cliff and the Democrat, they don't that it's not even about economic growth.
I saw, I saw Eric Cantor today standing up there giving the usual Republican spin.
We're not for raising taxes on wealth creators, we're not for raising taxes on job creators, we're not for raising taxes, people.
We want a plan here that ends up with economic growth.
All well and good, but Obama doesn't, and the Democrats don't.
Economic growth is itself unfair, ladies and gentlemen.
Because not everybody participates in it.
Economic growth, don't you know, is engineered by people who already have been rigging the game for 238 years.
The economy is rigged to grow to favor them.
And since not everybody will participate in economic growth, we're not going to have economic growth.
What we're going to have is redistribution.
What we're going to have is income equality.
And we're not going to have income equality by elevating people at lower incomes.
Oh no, we are going to have income equality by taking away people of money from people who have higher incomes.
We are going to raise taxes on the higher income people on the theory that that money will then be transferred to the lower income people.
It won't.
It will go to government.
Well, I take it back, it will be transferred in part, not in cash, but in other benefits.
But this isn't about economic growth.
And I don't anybody get caught up in the notion that that's what anybody cares about, particularly on a Democrat side.
It's not about economic growth.
It's about redistribution.
It's about transfers of wealth.
It's about destroying the opportunity to create wealth.
It's about really putting immovable obstacles in the way of becoming wealthy.
That's what really is taking place here.
Every increase in the income tax is just that, an obstacle to the creation of wealth.
How can you become wealthy if more of what you earn is taken from you?
You can't.
That's what this is about.
The fiscal cliff is a golden opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to do what they have wanted to do since the first whiff of progressivism or liberalism wafted up their nostrils or into their mouths, whatever orifice you want to talk about.
Whenever they began to sniff it, whenever they began to taste it, that is what they want.
In fact, I mentioned a Washington Post piece, an economics reporter Zachary Goldfarb.
The bedrock belief that has driven the president for a decade is the power of the federal government must be used to reduce income inequality in America.
According to Goldfarb, Obama formed this belief as a child and as a young adult while he lived abroad, where he observed, and these are Obama's words, the vast disparity in wealth between those who are part of the power structure and those who are outside of it.
So finally, what you and I have always known has now been admitted to in a Washington Post piece that Obama is all about redistribution.
He's not about economic growth.
He's about punishment.
He's about to make a difference.
Now, this is something you and I have been trying to tell people for four years, and nobody wanted to believe it.
It's too nice a guy.
How can it possibly be?
Now the media is out, part and parcel admitting.
Here, in this piece in the Washington Post, this economics writer, Zachary Goldfarb acknowledges the quote, although the stimulus was not sold or viewed as an attack on income inequality, that's exactly what it was.
So was Obamacare, says Goldfarb.
So the Washington Post has a piece that the stimulus was not what it was portrayed to be.
It was an attack on income inequality.
And so was Obamacare.
He says Obamacare takes a shot at addressing income inequality by imposing new taxes on the wealthiest Americans, which it does.
And the more taxes go up on people's income, the more obstacles there are to creating wealth.
Can't happen.
That's the objective.
We'll be back.
Okay, to the phones we go.
We're going to start in Loudoun, New Hampshire.
Larry, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Edit it.
Larry, you're there.
He hung up and nobody told me he hung up to make me look like an idiot.
There was never anybody.
Larry in another.
Is this Canton, Kansas?
Larry, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, love you, Russ.
Love you a long time.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Love you too.
Long, long time and even longer.
Hey, uh, Daniel Altman was making the media rounds and suggesting it and proposing a wealth tax of 1.5% to start off with, because he wanted to bring it in gradually.
Daniel Altman.
Altman, yeah, he's an economist.
He was uh, I heard it over the weekend.
He was saying it would boost the economic growth for long term.
No, no, no.
There's no economic growth.
Actually, actually, um, I shouldn't say this.
Actually, I have a great fear there is going to be economic growth.
Yes, I and and but I'm just let me caveat here, folks.
Let me tell you something.
The physical cliff of the Democrat Party, all these budget negotiations, this is not about economic growth.
It's not what they are interested in.
Obama doesn't care about economic growth.
That's not news.
What we have to realize is the American people don't either.
That's what we have to realize.
I consider all day long.
I have yet to be wrong about Obama.
From January 16th, when I told you I hope he fails.
I've nailed what Obama is all about, what he wants to do.
Where we all went wrong was we thought the American people would end up opposing it when they found out they support it.
Well, uh, people on the other side of the glass, no, no, Rush, it can't be true.
I'm not sitting here living in dreamland anymore.
I'm not gonna sit here live in fantasy land.
I'm telling you, the American people voted for this.
They voted for tax increases on the rich.
They voted for it.
That's what Obama ran on.
They voted against success.
That's what Romney epitomized.
They voted against Romney.
You look at the exit polling data.
The one two questions still blame Bush for the economy, but there's another one.
Cares about people like me.
Obama won that 18 or 81 to 17 percent.
81.
Well, Romney's the epitome of success.
He doesn't care about people.
He's not inspiration.
I don't want to be like Mitt Romney.
I want to be like Barack Obama.
I want to care.
I want to...
Whether Obama cares about him or not, doesn't matter.
They thought so.
The American people voted for policies that will not lead to economic growth.
People opening Obama Christmas presents do not care where it comes from.
They don't care how it's provided, and they're not interested in thanking anybody for it.
This is what we have to realize.
I'm telling you.
But I think there could be economic growth in this country, in spite of Obama, and in the energy sector of this country.
And then if you feel bad now, let me add to it, because Obama's policies will get credit for that.
Growth when they have literally nothing to do with it.
Okay, my friends, that's it for the first exciting busy broadcast hour here of our return to the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I will I will expand on these theorems that I expoused mere moments ago when we get back from the break here at the top of the hour, and we'll squeeze more of your phone calls in.
▲
Export Selection