All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
December 6, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It's time for more broadcast excellence.
From me, your host, L Rushball, firmly ensconst in the distinguished and prestigious Limbo Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Here we are already the uh it's already what is this Thursday or unbelievable.
I can't hear you when you talk to me.
Anyway, telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
So late in the program yesterday, we had a guy call who um wanted to raise taxes on everybody 100% on the rich.
Just make the rich finally pay for it, and finally show everybody what the disaster is.
And as you recall, I threatened to fire Snerdley if he ever gave me another one of those calls.
And Snerdly said, I hear you.
And the reason I got so agitated at that is that we're in the middle of the disaster.
We are in it.
And I think all folks, we're gonna have to realize to you and me it's a disaster, but to a majority of people who voted in the country, it isn't.
And so you you want to not you, I mean, but some people want to make sure that everybody realizes that the way the country's being run now is or will become a disaster.
So one of ways of illustrating that for these guys, and by the way, it's a growing sediment.
I have uh done some research, and there are people out there who you know, let's just cave on.
Raise taxes on the rich.
The theory is make the rich elitist liberals pay a price for voting for Obama.
That's the theory.
And on paper it sounds good.
Tax Warren Buffett, tax all these Hollywood people, make them pay for it.
There are two things, however, that uh need to be said.
I understand, as I say, the energy, passion, sentiment behind that, but once folks you do that, how how do you get that back?
How how don't care whose money you take away.
Once you start down that road, you think government's ever gonna give it back?
I mean, in your lifetime.
Um of the things that the left has always done, the the Democrats have always done, is secure votes by making their voters think that we are gonna be punished.
They uh raising taxes on the rich, for example, is exactly the the the example.
So Obama the Democrats said they're gonna raise tax on the rich, and union workers, middle class, lower middle class democrats go, yeah, yeah, you show them.
And their lives don't change, their taxes don't change, their income doesn't go up just because you raise taxes on the rich.
In fact, the more you do that, the worse off the little guy's gonna be.
But the little guy nevertheless is happy.
The Democrat Party's made up a bunch of people who are made happy via the suffering of others.
Not improvement in their own lives, but with the suffering of others.
The Democrats have made a terms of my life, lifetime policy out of this.
Revenge.
And Obama even said it.
What does he mean when he says, you know, get your revenge vote?
Take it out on the rich, take it out on the successful, take it out on the people that have more than you do.
I'll help you.
I'll punish them, I'll raise taxes on them.
Vote for me, and I'll make sure that you feel better because those people are gonna have it stuck to them.
And people do.
They don't care.
They don't care that their lives aren't improved, any significantly.
They just they get off on the fact that other people are being hurt, they think.
So now we got people on our side calling and suggesting the same thing.
Let's just make sure that they pay a price for supporting Obama.
And I understand that.
I understand the emotion behind that.
Problem is in Warren Buffett's case, you could raise the income tax rate to 100%, and you're gonna be collecting taxes on about 120,000 dollars of income.
The rest of his income is not earned, so to speak.
It's dividend capital gains.
Uh he's got his wealth.
You're gonna have to you're gonna have to institute a wealth tax to go get people like Buffett and many moguls and many executives.
They've insured themselves against the You have to understand the income tax is to prevent you from accruing wealth.
It's not going to punish the truly rich who are propping up Democrats.
The truly rich mogul, the truly rich CEO, the truly wealthy Wall Street tycoon.
They, you know, Warren Buffett is not paid $38, $40 million a year, whatever billion dollars, whatever he makes.
He's not somebody's not paying him that.
His investments are throwing off that income at a 15% tax rate.
So you could raise capital gains, maybe, but then you would have all kinds of negative impact on investment, and maybe that's what some of you want.
But they'll still be rich at the end of the day, at least compared to you and everybody else.
At the same time, you've endorsed the notion of punishing the rich, no matter who they are liberal, conservative, Republican, what have you.
And then there's also the, but we gotta f we got to show what it's like.
I've been hearing this since I sat down behind this microphone.
Let the Democrats win.
I first heard it in uh 1992 at Clinton.
Let Clinton win.
Call people calling, let Clinton win.
People see what kind of disaster we're headed for.
Well, we're in it.
We're in it.
And the people that you want to be impacted by the disasters to the point that they change their vote.
Guess what?
They've got however many weeks unemployment that they need and want, and more if they demand it.
They have their flat screen TVs, they have their cars, they've got their cell phones, in many cases an Obama phone.
They've got their 250 minutes a month.
Uh as far as they're concerned, I mean there's there there isn't any pain.
Not real pain.
So I said yesterday, some people, well, you were really, really mean yesterday.
What do you mean, mean?
Cutting off unemployment at 13 weeks.
Yeah, I that sounds mean today, I know.
Thirteen weeks, three months, we'll take care of you, and then you're on your own.
But Rush, but Rush, there aren't any jobs to be had.
You know, demand creates a lot of things.
When a lot of people need work, when there are a lot of people that want work.
There can be psychological shifts that can actually impact change policy, direction the country's going.
It you wasn't that long ago that 13 weeks unemployment was a godsend.
It was considered a great benefit.
Now, 99 weeks, you ever had that up?
So you're approaching two years.
And it's been shown the longer you don't work, the harder it is to get back into the mode.
And the longer you don't work, the harder it is to keep skills up.
Uh and 99 weeks plus, it's Obama's the Democrat Party's ID.
They're all for that.
Well, forgive your student launch, or at least they'll dangle that carrot in front of you.
Now, all this having been said, and you probably have heard uh more and more people saying, it's just go ahead and cave.
Let's let Obama have his taxes on the rich.
Facts, I got grab soundbite number two.
Media hyperventilating here over Obama and uh Boehner speaking on the phone, and then Stephanopoulos and George actually grab number three.
Because this is George Stephanopoulos and and Jonathan Carl, and they're just overjoyed.
They can't contain themselves.
The GOP conceding that taxes on the rich must go up at some good morning America today.
We're starting to see some Republicans concede that tax rates on the wealthy at least are going to have to go up.
But the president has another rock hard bottom line, and that is an increase in the U.S. debt limit as well.
Yeah, that's right.
Uh Republicans, even privately top Republicans say those tax rates are gonna almost certainly go up.
Oh, yeah, so happy.
They're just so happy.
Tax rates are gonna have to go up.
Yep, yep.
That's exactly and they're thrilled by it.
Uh you can ask yourself why all day long.
The answer is very simple.
The Republican Party is in the crosshairs.
The unity of the House Republicans is in the crosshairs.
What Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is blow it all up.
Politics, trying to wipe out the Republican Party.
They aren't interested in us liking them.
They aren't interested in getting along with us.
They aren't interested in collegiality or conviviality or fun and games.
They don't want us around in any significant numbers to cause them any problems.
And so best way to do that is to get us to compromise on our core.
And they get excited when they think they're making progress in that regard.
Now back to the raising taxes on the rich business.
Simple fact of the matter is it's happened.
Three states now, when you add it all up, are going to have a marginal top tax rate of over 50%.
California, Hawaii, and what is the actually a lot a lot of them are closed.
California, Hawaii, and uh the one other, I don't think it's it might be yeah, New York.
That would be the natural thing to assume.
California, here's the details.
Top states, and oh, and by the way, the vast majority of these people are in blue states.
The vast majority of the people who are going to be paying over 50%.
In fact, you're you're getting what you want to a certain extent because Obama is raising taxes on his voters.
Most of these people in blue states, for example, the top states with the most households at $250,000 and above are in order.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington, D.C. Only Virginia, and that's even a toss-up.
Only Virginia, not a blue state.
The rest of these states, dead blue.
The top metro areas, cities, with the most $250,000 households.
Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, San Jose, Washington, D.C. The states with the highest average housing values and mortgages, meaning the most expensive as well.
Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco.
The states with the highest percentage of people taking itemized deductions, which are soon to go.
California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington.
So those of you who want taxes raised on the rich, you're getting your dream.
Obama's raising taxes on his voters.
His voters in California voted to raise taxes on themselves.
Folks.
It's called Proposition 30 in California.
Some Doomkoff entrepreneurs just now figuring out what happened, but it's too late.
And in California, Hawaii, and I think New York, three states, people at 200,000, 250,000 a year not going to be paying.
When you add, you know what the marginal, the top marginal income tax rate in California?
13.3% added to the federal, which is going to 40.
39.6, 13.3 plus 40.
We're not talking Medicare, Social Security yet.
Marginal income tax rates, over 50%.
California, Hawaii, New York, these other states are very, very close.
Is this what Obama wants?
No.
It would appear so.
This is what he's angling for.
You take a look at the Republican offer of raising $800 billion.
How has Boehner offered it?
Eliminating deductions.
Eliminating write-offs, loopholes and all that.
Loopholes.
Anyway, the Republicans do not want rates to go up.
The reason they say they're holding fast on rates, and this is true, is because so many small business people who are organized under subchapter S corporation rules file personal income taxes on their own.
file their business tax on their personal form.
And the marginal rate, the marginal income tax rate, if it's left alone, this is theoretical, but it's it's a pretty applicable.
If the marginal rate goes up, those people are harmed.
It's money off the top.
It will restrict the growth of their business.
It will take away disposable income that they can invest in either in themselves and the families or in their businesses.
It will restrict their ability to hire people.
However, if you leave the marginal rates alone, which the Republicans want to do, but concede, okay, well, get rid of the deductions, the charitable donations, the mortgage interest, all that stuff.
It is said that will have the least impact on small business.
And that that's why and Obama, by the way, and you can raise the money.
You could get $800 billion over a period of time by eliminating deductions.
And Obama's opposing that.
Obama doesn't, he wants both.
He wants the rate up and the elimination of deductions.
And people are saying, well, wait, wait a minute.
If you get the money that you say you want for deficit reduction, all this it's crap, but if you get the money that you say you want with the elimination of deductions, why not take it?
The point is it's not the money that Obama wants, folks.
If there were a way, and I'm going to come up with some of it of an extreme example to illustrate, but it's right on the money.
If there were a magic way to legitimately, not print or borrow, but legitimately raise a trillion dollars that could be handed to Obama right now that did not require raising taxes or eliminating loopholes.
He would not take it.
The trillion dollars, the 1.6 trillion, the 1.2, the $800, but whatever the number is, is not relevant.
What's relevant to Obama is inflicting the damage.
Now that may be to may make you nervous to hear me describe Obama's desire that way.
So let me change inflicting the damage to Obama.
He wants to punish.
There's no other way to describe it.
You give him a trillion dollars without raising taxes, and that won't count.
He is going to have those taxes raised.
He wants the rates up.
He's not going to compromise.
He wants the rates up, he wants the deductions gone because of the impact it will have.
It's not about raising money.
Remember what he said about capital gains.
When it was pointed out to him that lowering the capital gains rate increased the amount of revenue to Washington, this was in uh 2007 or 2008.
Obama said, I don't care.
It's an it's a fairness issue for me.
Fairness.
So it wasn't fair that investment income was taxed so low.
He didn't care about the revenue being generated.
You all think that we raise taxes or levy taxes to raise money to run the government efficiently.
That's not what it's about anymore.
Not with this guy, and not with these people in the Democrat Party.
It's not about that.
There are many things going on here.
One of them is to is to redistribute wealth and take it from people who have it and then eliminate, decimate the Republican Party.
That's that's where we are.
That's what going over to Cliff or not going over to Cliff is really all about.
I gotta take a brief time out.
We'll be back after this.
As to the fiscal cliff, folks, do you realize in all you strip it all down, there is no common ground between the Republicans and the Democrats.
There isn't one shred of common ground, not an acre.
What do the Republicans want?
The Republicans want to reform the entitlement system.
Why?
So that the government doesn't require as much money.
So that the government does not take as much money out of the private sector.
They want to reform Entitlements because we don't have the money for it.
We're in debt.
The Democrats want more money so that the entitlement system doesn't have to be reformed.
They don't want a reform in the entitlement.
The only reform they want is more money.
They don't want any reduction in spending.
They don't want any changes in the entitlement structure.
They want more money to maintain it and to grow it.
The Republicans want to reform entitlements, which means stop spending.
There is no common ground.
There is no way to come to an agreement.
The only thing that can happen is for one side to cave in.
That's the only way there's going to be an agreement.
You can't.
This is not one of those things where if one side gives and another side gives, we get common ground.
There isn't any common ground.
Jim Dement and Ed Fulner are coming up.
Stand by.
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone here at our little think tank, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, which exists in part in large part because of another think tank.
A lot of conservatives owe a lot to their existence today, and that would be the Heritage Foundation, which was founded in 1973.
The Heritage Foundation came into existence primarily, there were many reasons, but one of the things there were simply a number of conservatives in this country outraged at the big government policies of the Nixon administration.
So a gentleman named Ed Fulner, Paul Weyrick, and Joseph Kors got together and founded the Heritage Foundation.
Ed Fulner has been the president of the Foundation.
He's been with it since the beginning.
He joins us here today with the new president of the Heritage Foundation, Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina, who is retiring in January to assume this position.
And this is a major event in the country in a conservatism, and I'm happy to welcome them both to the EIB network today to explain it.
Gentlemen, hi.
Thanks for making some time with us.
Hi, Rush.
It's great to be with you and to be able to announce to you and all your friends this great development at Heritage.
This is Ed Fulner.
Well, why?
What's happening to make this happen now, Ed?
Well, as you know, about three years ago, I told our Board of Trustees that look ahead, gentlemen and ladies.
I am going to be 71, and it is time for us to find a successor, and we've got to find somebody who's absolutely committed to our firm principles here at Heritage and who knows the sanctity of our research and who can lead heritage to the next level.
And boy, have we got that guy.
Senator Jim Dement, why have you decided to retire from the Senate to take this on?
Rush, it was the Heritage Foundation that inspired me to run for Congress, and much of the policies, uh many of the policies that I've developed, um, whether it be Social Security reform or uh health care reform, tax reform, heritage has guided that policy development,
and I believe that I can do more good for the conservative movement outside of the Senate and leveraging the assets of the Heritage Foundation to communicate a more positive, optimistic message to the American people.
That's interesting.
Um is this I assume it would be due in part because the Republicans are a minority in the Senate, and you've got a good bench.
You've got a bunch of young guys that you have had a role in recruiting at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
You've got um you're not really abandoning it, and you've got you've got a bench there, but i is it I mean, you you've you've expressed frustration in the past.
The Republicans had the White House, the House, and the Senate, or two of the three and didn't do anything with it that you thought was was was i in any way progress.
Is there frustration here as part of this?
Yes, it's part frustration, but uh, I am also reassured that we have now stocked the Senate with some of the strongest conservatives in the country today, and that's a big change.
So I'm leaving the Senate better than I found it, and I think I can do a lot to support these conservatives inside the Senate and the House, working with the Heritage Foundation all over the country to convince Americans that our policies are the best for them.
A hundred percent of Americans, uh whether they're poor or rich, the conservative ideas will make the lives of Americans better, and heritage has the platform for me to help spread that idea.
Tell people how that happens, because a lot of people are thinking, here you are a member of the U.S. Senate.
That's a very exclusive club.
There are only a hundred people.
It is by reputation the greatest deliberative body in the world.
You're abandoning it or leaving it, and you're telling us that you're going to have more power, more influence or greater opportunity for it at Heritage.
So what does heritage do that you can't do in the Senate?
Well, as you know, Rush, in the Senate, a lot of my role has been trying to stop bad legislation and explaining to America why the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party are not good for them.
Right, playing defense.
And that's an important role.
But uh, after spending most of my life in advertising and marketing and research, I know that we can do a whole lot better job of convincing the American people, winning their hearts and souls.
And if we do that, then we're going to be more effective inside of Congress and more effective at election time.
So this is not a matter of getting out the vote.
Conservatives have to be so persuasive all over the country that Republicans have to come to our to our ideas in order to get elected.
Well, I don't want to put anybody on the spot.
What are you going to do differently?
I mean, uh I am often accused.
Not not a cute wrong word.
I it's often said to me, you got to branch out.
You're preaching to the choir.
What direction are you going to take heritage in that's different?
Well, we're going to preserve the culture of heritage and uh the sanctity of their research to make sure that it is unquestioned throughout our country that the research we do on our policies is is accurate, and that's important to keep that part of the culture.
But what we can do differently, Rush, is is focus on federalism.
We've got twenty-five States now with Republican governors and legislatures.
A lot of them are doing the right things with being right-to-work states, cutting their taxes, uh, whether whether it's immigration reform, voter ID, education choice.
What we want to do at Heritage is more of what we've been doing, and that's to spotlight the things that are working, promote them in other states, and use those real outcomes to to pressure the people here in Washington to pass the policies that let these things work.
So you're going to have a different and a greater opportunity to work against, for example, Harry Reid than you've had in the Senate.
Well this may surprise you, but Harry Reid's a good friend of mine.
I just walked into his office and and talked to him.
The problem is is not Harry Reid.
I think the problem is as uh as conservatives, we have not taken enough control of our message and our ideas and communicated them directly to the American people.
Uh that's what we want to do at Heritage is convince the large majority of Americans that conservative ideas will make their lives better.
Now you guys, by definition, are scholars.
You guys are are scholars.
You are, in terms of informed and and the educated, you're in the elite.
We live in a country that is influenced considerably by what are now called low information voters.
I would love it if you guys could find a way to penetrate that group and have them understand exactly what it is you do, why you do it, what it is that inspires you, what conservatism is.
Is that of any interest to you, or is is that is that something that that is not within the realm?
Aaron Ross Powell, oh, Rush, that's so much of interest to where heritage can go in the future, and that's why Jim Dement is such a perfect fit for Heritage Foundation as we move into the new era.
Uh first, let me give you a quick quote.
Jim Dement's combination of brilliance, principle, common sense, uh, creativity, and above all else courage will be an ideal fit for the conservative movement's leading think tank.
You know who said that this morning?
Ted Cruz.
You just mentioned Ted Cruz, and we are so excited that Ted Cruz is going to be coming up into the Senate.
But back to your point.
Yes, people out there need to know how much we care, not just to know that not just to uh care about how much we know.
They've got to know that that we really have solutions that will work.
Jim Dement's background in terms of marketing and focus groups and taking the message that we've got and saying, how can we make this relevant to real people?
How can we go back to what Jack Kemp used to be able to tell us about tax rates?
How can we move ahead with new arguments in terms of, hey, school choice is really what we need in the inner cities.
It's not so much what we need in the suburbs, it's what we need in the inner cities.
So Jim is gonna be a real breath of fresh air here in terms of how we can reach those new audiences just that you were talking about.
Well are you gonna do, Ed?
I mean, you gotta have you ever thought of radio, you have a great voice.
Thank you, Rush.
Not even sound a little bit like Ronald Reagan.
Not nearly like yours, and I will stay busy.
Jim has asked me to stay on and work part-time with him, and I'll be happy to do that, and I'll be I'm gonna be out there still preaching the message, but it's gonna be great to work under Jim's leadership here when he takes over.
Well, congratulations, Senator.
I I I know you're doing this because you believe in it and you want to do it, and the uh the timing is right.
I've I I'll tell you, folks, for what little it might matter.
Every speech that I have made at Heritage, Jim Demint is there.
He's not new to this.
I mean, you've believed in heritage for a long, long time.
I've I I I I've seen you at every heritage event I've been at.
You're right.
Uh uh.
I feel like I'm coming home.
I just told that to all the heritage staff.
When I walk in the door here, I'm with like-minded people who care about the cause nationwide.
So this is really a homecoming for me.
So, Rush, one quick anecdote.
About seven years ago, this uh bright young uh freshman senator came over, he said he wanted to have twenty minutes with me, and Jim Dement came over and said, Ed, we've got to measure dependency of the individual citizen on the government.
We've got to come up with a dependency index.
It was Jim Dement who dreamed that up, and that's now one of our premier publications every year.
Uh Jim is a man of real man of ideas as well as a man of courage in the Senate.
Well, and I guess safe to say Boehner is not forcing either of you guys out, right?
That's pretty true.
Uh it might work a little bit the other way, Rush.
All right.
Okay.
Look, thanks both of you guys for your time and and the best of luck.
And we uh Ed, just so you know, uh in in case you don't, we here at the EIB Network value our relationship with you, and and uh people I tell them all the time uh the Reagan and Reagan was Reagan and he was in charge, but he worked very closely with you and people at Heritage on policy.
Um you guys are the real thing, um the the the real deal, and it's an honor to be associated with you, and I'm glad that you have this time for us today.
Thank you, Rush.
Thanks, Rush.
Jim Demand.
By the way, Senator, have you told the members have you told your your uh Republican uh senators yet of this?
They all know I'm getting ready to go have lunch with them and uh explain the reasons.
But uh and in this modern age of communication with the the tweet has gone out all around the world.
Right.
Okay.
Well, good luck with that and uh good luck in the future.
Thank you, Roger.
Thanks, Rush.
Okay, we'll take a brief time out and continue when we get back.
Don't go away.
And we are back meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rushland bought the excellence in broadcasting network.
So to resume our discussion here on taxes, if you are among those who want to see taxes on the rich go up because there are a lot of rich Democrats that voted for Obama, uh you're gonna get your wish.
California 52, 53 percent top marginal rate.
Hawaii over 50 percent, New York over 50 percent.
Uh now, uh I want to stress again that the kind of people that you want to punish are not gonna be punished.
Warren Buffett, just to give you an example, because his name was brought up three or four times to me, uh, since yesterday's program.
Warren Buffett, well, I don't know what his annual, I don't know what his net worth is, but what he let's let let's say he makes two billion a year, pick a number.
How much of that do you think is salary?
I don't know, but I'm gonna guess it's a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
That that's what he pays income tax on.
Every bit of the rest of it is either going to be investment income, uh capital gain income, uh clipping coupons, investment growth, you name it.
But it's not going to be income taxed at the new 39.6 rate, or 50% if you happen to live in one of these blue states.
Uh it's going to be taxed at whatever the new capital gain rate goes up to.
Depending on what happens with that, that could hit it could hit uh 35%.
But that's still going to be less than what the new income tax rate is is going to be.
But despite people like Buffett, there are still a lot of Democrats in these blue states that make $250,000 a year who are going to get creamed.
And if that makes you feel better, then go ahead and feel good because it's going to happen.
Obama is taxing his own people.
Some people think it's because of that and he might be bluffing, but he's not bluffing.
And I want to stress again, folks, there is no common ground in this fiscal cliff deal.
There is no middle ground.
There's nowhere to meet.
There's nothing in common.
This is like the Palestinians and the Israelis.
There isn't any common ground.
And just to go through it again very quickly, the Republicans are insistent that tax rates stay the same, that spending cuts take place in order to reduce the debt.
They want entitlement reform because we can't afford it anymore.
So they want less money for entitlements because we reform them.
The Democrats do not want entitlement reform.
They do not want less money.
The Democrats want more money to prop up.
Not just not just to prop up.
The Democrats want more money to grow the entitlement system.
In that side-by-side comparison, there is no common ground.
And so the only way this is going to get solved is in one side gives up.
It's the only way.
I'm not trying to be defeatist.
This is realistic.
There's no no common ground here.
There's no bipartisanship to be had.
It ain't gonna happen.
There is no compromise.
None.
There is only concession.
That's all it can, and that's what will happen.
Now to illustrate what Jay Carney, while we were talking to Senator Dement and Ed Fulner at Heritage, Jay Carney was briefing the media.
And Ed Henry, the White House reporter, said, Jay, a moment ago you said it's frightening for Republicans to bring back the debt ceiling again, raise the specter of the nation defaulting.
Isn't it frightening for the American people to hear the Treasury Secretary say that we're going off the cliff?
The President of the United States will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, or for those making more than $250,000 a year.
This is an issue that the American people understand.
They are very clear about, and if public surveys are to be believed, are supportive of the President on.
We can't afford it.
He has made this very clear.
What he has also made clear is that Republicans in the House could act today to give tax cuts for 98% of the American people.
They have not, because they insist that tax cuts for the top two percent are more important.
What did he just say we can't afford?
The President's spokesman just said we can't afford to let people keep what they are uh keep the same amount that they're earning now.
We need more from them.
We can't afford.
We can't afford to let high income earners continue as they are.
The nation can't afford that.
And the American people agree this is all about punishing the rich.
And as Carney says, that's what the American people voted for.
They support the president on this.
There aren't we're not going to extend the Bush Tax rates.
We can't afford that.
And the American people voted to punish everybody who earns $250,000 or more, and that's what we're going to do.
Okay, my friends, another exciting hour of broadcast excellence in the ether.
It will show up in transcript form and audio at rushlimbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection