All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:01
December 6, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, my friends, how are you?
Great to have you back.
Or if you are just getting up, it's great to have you as well.
All are welcome here at the Excellence and Broadcasting Network of the Rush Limbaugh program and the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, telephone number if you want to join us, 800-28282, and email address L Roshbow at EIB net.com.
Here's the full Breitbart.com story.
Most Americans like to think of themselves as patriots.
Advocates for American values.
But according to a new study, the very definition of American values has changed dramatically thanks to Obama.
According to the Pew Research Center, 49%, only 49%.
That's a minority of Americans say, quote, our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior.
In 2002, sixty percent of Americans said our people aren't perfect, but our culture is superior.
Now it's 49%.
And I will acknowledge that there could be a number of people who think our culture is rot.
And that is why they are saying that their culture is not superior anymore.
And you would be hard pressed to disagree with them.
But it is nevertheless problematic, considering that our culture is superior to other cultures.
And all you have to do to prove that is just ask the millions trying to get here.
And out of hell holes like Afghanistan or wherever else around the world that they live.
But here is a show.
This next number is, this is quite telling.
36% of Americans say success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control.
36%.
58% of Americans said it's more important that all people be free to pursue their dreams than that the government should guarantee nobody is in need.
Let me read that again.
58% of Americans said that it's more important that all people be free to pursue their dreams than that the government guarantee that nobody is in need.
Anyway, 36%.
36.
Just over a third of the country thinks success is not anything that has to do with them.
So much for individualism.
Bill Crystal of the Weekly Standard has decided that retreat is the way forward for the Republican Party in a new editorial.
Bill Crystal, the editor of the Weekly Standard, also a Fox commentator, has essentially advised the Republicans to throw in the towel on the Fiscal Cliff talks and more or less accept Obama's terms.
In the piece, Crystal details all the shock and depression Republican insiders feel after losing an election they thought was in the bag.
He then goes on to complain the Republicans'legislative scene isn't any better than its failed electoral scheme.
Even the fact that the Republicans still control the House does not comfort Crystal.
Worst of all, he says the GOP has no proposal for averting the fiscal cliff.
So what to do?
Just acquiesce to Obama.
Be done with it.
He writes, might it be prudent for Republicans to acquiesce for now to a modified version of Obama's plan to keep current income tax rate the same for ninety-eight percent of Americans.
While also insisting on maintaining the reduced payroll tax rate of the last two years and reversing the dangerous defense sequester, that deal would be doable.
It wouldn't wreck the country and would buy Republicans time to have much needed internal discussion and debate about where to go next.
But Crystal additionally says that he thinks he knows why it won't happen.
It's Grover Norquist's fault.
Without giving Norquist the satisfaction of actually naming him, Crystal blames the pledge master for preventing the Republicans from caving into Obama on a timely schedule.
I think this simply confirms the theory that I espoused to you earlier today about what the real objective here is, and that is for Obama to secure a confession from the Republicans that all of our economic problems.
All of them, be it in the entitlement area, be it the debt, deficits, whatever, home values, whatever.
He wants every problem assigned to tax cuts.
The fact that Bush cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes, that the country was founded on a silly notion of capitalism and trickle down, that's two hundred plus years has gotten us to where we are now.
He wants it taught in the schools for a generation that tax cuts equal a recession, that tax cuts equal you losing your job.
You don't have a job because of Bush.
You don't have a job because of tax cuts.
You don't have a home because of tax cuts.
You don't have the car you want because of tax cuts.
That's what he's aiming for.
The money, I'll just tell you again.
The money that they're arguing about $800 billion with this plan, $1.6 trillion with that plan, none of it matters to Obama.
It's not about the money at all.
This is about the fact that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
And what Obama wants to destroy is the Republican Party.
And the way to take out the Republican Party is to simply secure in the minds of a majority of Americans that the number one belief, the number one policies, the number one identifier.
Tax cuts equal economic growth.
If you destroy that, you've destroyed the Republican Party.
If you succeed, if you're Obama and you succeed in convincing a majority of Americans tax cuts are the reason for all these economic woes, the next person that proposes tax cuts is going to be laughed at and they're going to grab the hook, pull a guy off stage.
And Obama knows that once the Republicans perceive whatever they think public opinion is, they'll try to get on the right side of it, as in we now must be for amnesty.
As in, we've got to throw away what we believe on the social issues.
That's why we're losing elections.
Add tax cuts to that, and you've got the trifecta.
Add tax cuts to that, and you have denuded the Republican Party.
And that's what this is really all about.
And in addition, I've remind you again there is no middle ground here.
There's no way to compromise.
There is either concession or hanging in, not agreeing to anything, and prolonging the argument.
Those are the only two options.
There isn't compromise.
And I'm not even saying the Democrats don't want to.
I'm simply there isn't any.
There is nothing in common between the two parties on any of this.
That might make some of you nervous.
Might make some of you scared.
I'm just telling you the way there isn't any common ground here.
The things the Democrats want are nowhere near what the Republicans want.
Not even close.
Again, I'll run through it very briefly.
Spending cuts.
Entitlement reform.
They want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid made smaller.
Don't have the money for it.
The programs have grown well beyond what their even original Intention was.
There simply is no way to sustain this.
The Democrats want more money to expand entitlements.
They want the they don't want any entitlement reform.
There is no make the system solvent to them.
System isn't broken.
There's nothing wrong except entitlements aren't big enough.
The problem as far as the Democrats is concerned is that people who can afford it aren't paying enough to support them and prop them up.
There's no way to split this baby.
There just isn't.
Bill Crystal said the Tea Party wouldn't mind if a few millionaires pay a couple percent more in taxes.
So Bill Kristol, whether he is aware of it or not, is signing on to the death warrant of the Republican Party.
I don't know where he came up with it, but he's signing on to the Obama wish list.
Tax cuts equal recession.
Tax cuts equal unemployment.
Tax cuts equal massive indebtedness.
Tax cuts equal massive student loans.
Tax cuts equate economic problem there is, it will be said to be the fault of tax cuts.
People who could have paid more didn't.
People who have more than they need didn't.
And we have finally arrived at a point in our country where a majority of people voting for Democrats, I think emotionally and intellectually understand that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
And they want they want these people to suffer.
They want these rich people to pay for it.
They want these rich people to get a taste of it.
That's what Obama meant.
Well, when's affirmative action gonna stop?
Never.
The punishment never stops.
The punishment is only successful when there aren't any more rich people.
When it's all been taken from them.
Snerdley asked me, well, when does this punishment stop?
Is it when does affirmative action stop?
In fact, that was one of my first questions with affirmative action back in the 70s.
I was talking to some people about it, people who believed in it, and they said, yeah, we got to redress previous grievances, uh previous discrimination.
Okay, so you want to discriminate against some people now to make up for discrimination against others.
But the people you're discriminating against now haven't, they're not guilty of what you're angry at.
Oh no, you're confusing the issue.
No, I'm not.
But forget that, I said.
When what at what point has there been enough redress?
At what point have you squared it all?
At what point has it all been made equal?
Never.
Affirmative action was the birth of a new political business for the Democrat Party.
It's like feminism was.
It's like environmentalism is.
Brand new businesses.
Brand new arms of the Democrat Party.
All right, my friends, a brief timeout.
Oh, oh.
Dana Milbank.
Dana Milbank is really, really mad at Mitt Romney.
Did you know this?
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post.
Apparently, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Mitt Romney has announced that he is rejoining the board of directors at Marriott.
In his statement, Romney said it is an honor to once again be able to serve in the company of leaders like Bill Merriott.
And I guess Dana Milbank is livid.
The country's in a crisis, political leaders in a standoff, and Romney is joining his buddy's corporate board.
He ought to be helping the poor.
He ought to be giving some of his money away.
He ought to be donating to charity.
He ought to be concerned about the unemployed.
He what how dare he go back into the private sector where he might help some capitalistic monolith become more profitable?
Hasn't he learned anything by what happened to him?
Doesn't Romney realize what he has to do.
He ran for president.
His ideas lost.
What Romney has to do now is essentially give himself away.
He has to pay for what he did.
He has to pay for the advantages that he had in his life.
See, Romney ran for office, but he had nothing personal at stake if he lost.
It wasn't any big deal.
He'd lose anything by losing.
Now he's going back to the board of Mary Abnt.
There'd probably be in a couple other Dana Milbank is really angry about this in this piece.
I am not kidding you.
They think Romney still owes them.
I gotta take a break now.
We'll come back.
Your phone calls are next.
Be ready when we get back.
That's right.
That's right.
Dana Milbank believes that Mitt Romney is shirking his duty by going back to work in the private sector.
Milbank is furious.
Instead of becoming a minor Santa Claus, Romney is going back to work.
and And is shirking his duty.
Here is one of the things he writes.
Milbank says, yet rather than stepping forward to help find a way out of the fiscal standoff.
What what is Milbank think that Romney's been doing for the past two years?
Romney put forth ways to get out of the fiscal stand, fix the mess.
He was rejected because he hates dogs and lets guys' wives die and um is a felon, and he has money in the Caymans, and he has a female wife.
He's got five kids, all boys.
Tells you something about his genes.
I mean, he's a is an abject un-American.
What's he got to offer anyway, Milbank?
What in the world you want out of Romney?
He's despicable, right?
He he allowed some guy's wife to die, kills dogs, it hates dogs.
Uh a felon and has money in the Caymans.
What what value is Mitt Romney to you guys anyway?
Here's uh here's John Indianapolis.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, conservatarian ditto from Indianapolis.
Thank you, uh sir, uh very, very much.
It is time in my belief, or maybe time for the Republicans to march down to the White House, grab and hold President Obama's hand and jump off the fiscal cliff.
Um they are being bullied, and and if you're gonna get beat up in a bullying incident, at least get some punches in.
And the only punch they have is to go off the fiscal cliff hand in hand with the man who signed the.
Well, there's there's only one problem with that.
And I'm I'm i I'm not trying to be funny.
And I'm a naturally funny person.
I'm not trying to be funny.
If anybody goes over to fiscal cliff, it isn't gonna be Obama.
The Republicans, if they choose that route, are gonna go over it alone.
But Rush, they're going to get blamed regardless of what's the first time.
That's my that's my point.
They're gonna get blamed regardless.
Well, if they cave and give him everything he wants, they're gonna be taunted for being toothless tigers.
And they will lose people like me.
I'm on the verge of the city.
So why do you want him to go over the cliff then?
Because it gives them that's the only thing that will give them leverage in negotiations after January 1st.
That's the only way they can get leverage.
They don't have any leverage now, in my opinion.
I may be dead wrong, but they have no leverage.
He will be if he's a big deal.
What do you mean they have no leverage?
They have a majority of the votes in the House.
Yeah, but they can't affect any legislation.
The only thing they can do is allow the fiscal clip to go back.
What happens in the fiscal cliff?
We go back to the Clinton tax rates, right?
That's one thing that that happens.
My argument is Obama wants to add to the Bush tax cuts because the Bush tax cuts were very progressive.
Nobody talks about it, but he wants to add progressivity to a very progressive tax code.
You remember how the left lied about how they were nothing but tax cuts for the rich?
That was a lie.
It's a very progressive tax system.
I'm saying let it happen.
And we will get some serious negotiations, but not we have no way of forcing you see.
If he has no way of forcing ours, if we have the gumptions to just walk away.
That's my point.
I may be good wrong.
I'll throw it out to you.
Well, now, wait a minute.
Walking away and going over to Cliff are two different things.
Well, I think if we walk away from it what is it you really you really you want them to walk away is what you want, right?
I want them to walk away from negotiations, which means we do go over the cliff.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what I want.
But you want to what you want is what we ought.
You want if we go over to Cliff, you want it to be Obama driving the car.
That's your whole point, right?
If disaster's gonna happen, it ain't gonna be it ain't gonna be because we helped.
Well, right.
He if if it goes over the cliff, look, he signed the legislation, right?
I mean, he's gone over the cliff too.
The legislation signed.
Right.
Yeah.
That's that's my point.
You know, the legislation that Obama and Vahner have already agreed to.
Correct.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um, I g I I get your point, but they're not gonna have any leverage.
Even if they did, they don't know what they don't.
Here is Chris in Charleston, South Carolina.
Hi, sir.
Great to have you.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
About one month before the election, I was reading an article that said that people making $250,000 and more, their taxes would go up.
And my very first thought was, well, thank God I don't make that much.
But then my immediate second thought was I live in America.
There's no reason that I should be having that as my first thought.
It's a completely foreign thought.
That's a natural no wait a minute.
This is an excellent point because it is a natural thought that everybody has.
And that's what the Democrats play on.
It is entirely natural.
Give thanks, you're not a target.
That's exactly right.
I mean, I feel like, wow, thank God I dodged that.
But back ten years ago, more when I started, I do have a small business.
And so if that kind of creep thinking is creeping into my thinking, I'm very concerned.
What about younger people?
It it's not going to creep in, it's gonna be first thought-only thought.
And what about the future entrepreneurs, people like Steve Jobs?
I mean, I don't see how you foster creativity if you feel like I don't want to be a target.
The whole premise of raising taxes on the rich is to have the ninety-eight percent cheer it on.
That they're not part of the the whole premise of it.
That's you can't separate this from the class envy aspect.
You're you're quite mature to then pull back and say, wait a minute.
The real question is, let's say that you are nowhere near that threshold, Chris.
You don't have a small business, you just whatever you earn, you're nowhere near it.
You get the news that people of two hundred and fifty thousand or higher are gonna get a tax increase.
And let's say you cheer it.
The real question should be, wait a minute, how does that make my life better?
Materially.
I mean, is is it is it enough that I feel good that somebody's getting stuck?
Because that's what's being sold.
That kind of thought is so foreign to me.
Like I think of people that make millions of dollars, and you know, I think good for them.
I don't I have simple needs.
I don't need millions of dollars.
I get to do what I want to do.
But I don't even understand the thinking.
This this is.
Let me give you something else to think about then, because there's another aspect of this that is also pretty insidious.
Go back to your original thought.
You gave thanks that you're not in that bracket.
And then there are some people who then because this is a subtle way to discourage people from being ambitious.
And not only that, but to give thanks, I guess, to the government for not punishing me.
Yeah, and to giving you a way to not be punished.
I.e.
don't become that successful.
Right.
That's the insidious.
There's a it's it's it's discouragement.
It's a subtle form of discouraging effort and success by by telling people you'll be left alone, you won't be targeted, you're not going to be said to be the problem.
You just be a face in the crowd, you just go along, and you're gonna be okay.
Exactly.
And this technique has been used throughout history to subjugate whole peoples.
They're really not uh I don't I don't know.
I uh the the the way we're discussing things here, I don't uh you are you saying you'd be great if you heard some elected uh Republicans go to a microphone and talk about things like you and I are discussing them?
Yeah, I would.
I'd feel like someone else thinks like I do, like someone in a position of authority.
Uh you have to know this before you can talk about it.
You have to believe it.
You have to um I I think it's one of the problems that that we face when we look around for conservatism and in in leadership.
There aren't a whole lot of people that really can explain it, Chris.
You know, that that that are elected, there are a few, and look how they stand out.
Marco Rubio, Jack Kemp, Paul Ryan.
Uh uh take your pick.
They're there the few, but the the ones that can, they're the stars.
And you would you would think that'd be infectious.
Uh I I think right now what's happening's caught up in the minutia of all this.
Everybody's caught up in the well, if we'll give you 800 billion dollars here with deductions and uh and and and and loopholes, uh they're not even thinking philosophically.
Everybody's got their green eye shades on here.
Well, the Democrats don't, but they want everybody to think they do.
We've got our green eye shades on, and we've got our accountants on the case.
And and and because that's what we think the American people are paying attention to.
Anyway, Chris, I gotta run.
I appreciate the call, though.
Thank you very much.
Phil in Holly, Michigan, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Russia.
It's a really honor uh to talk to you uh f first time caller and long time listener.
Thank you very much, sir.
Um really quickly, I always I've always wondered uh why they um make um you got your radio on uh Phil.
Um can you hear me better now?
Is somebody talking to you there?
No.
No, it's uh I'm trying to hear you're not talking.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
Um when we make uh tax increases, they happen right away, okay?
Yeah.
And but when we um say we're gonna make spending cuts, um they say well, it'll be over like that 10-year period.
Oh, I see where you're going.
I see what the spending cuts always happen way down there.
Yeah.
But the tax cuts happen immediately.
Yeah, why can't we reverse that and start making spending cuts right now where it's so important say we can make ha like a half or well, let me tell you, we we've done that.
I I we did it twice, in fact, in the 1980s.
Ronald Reagan agreed, you might be shocked at this, but Ronaldus Magnus agreed to two tax increases.
One of them was called TEFRA, uh Bob Dole was behind it, TEFRA, and it promised three dollars of spending cuts for every new dollar of taxation.
And the spending just never happened.
Even though the Democrats agreed that the spending would happen at the same time that the taxes go up.
Right.
They just didn't do it.
But why couldn't we use that now as a bargaining chip or as a um part of a solution?
Okay.
Let's say that you and I are in a negotiation to buy your house.
And I tell you I will pay you after I move in.
And you agree.
And I move in and don't pay you.
What are you going to do?
Um the next time you sell your house to me.
No, the next time the next time you sell your house to me, what are you going to do?
I'm not going to sell it to you.
Oh, but if you're a Republican, you would.
Well, yeah, that's true, but um.
Well, that's what's happened here.
I can't tell you the number of times we've made deals for spending cuts that never happen.
Which tells me that all we want is the deal that says there'll be cuts that we don't even really care about them either.
We lost him.
There's some hobgoblin on this guy.
Something's going on there.
I think he had his radio on trying to.
He was nervous.
Very nervous.
Well, I thought he might have been trying to hear himself on the radio and was getting confused by the uh by the delay.
Okay.
Uh look at the clock.
Another obscene prophet.
Can you believe it?
Gee.
Did you guys hear about the Twitter debate Piers Morgan had with a woman?
I don't know who she is.
I don't, I can't recall her name.
But it was after the Joven Jovan Belcher murder suicide.
Piers Morgan, a Brit, by the way, telling us lecturing us about our Constitution.
I always loved it.
I love Brits lecturing us about our Constitution, particularly Second Amendment.
So he's going on and on and on about it.
We got to get rid of Second Amendment.
It was written for muskets and and you know, little one-shot ball-bearing pistols and stuff.
It wasn't meant for any this weapons we have now.
And the woman wrote back said, No, the Second Amendment was written so that people would be able to protect themselves against whatever.
Essentially, against whatever danger or threat they faced.
And Piers Morgan said, Well, where does it say that in the Constitution?
You can't point in and say anything.
She said, Yeah, it's right there next to Muskets.
Dave Salem, Oregon, you're next.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you from the great uh left state of Oregon.
I'm one of the few conservatives left out here.
And um just had an observation going back to one of your previous callers.
Oh, and one other thing, Rush, I really consider it an o an honor to be on the air to be talking to you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Um the college professor that was speaking earlier was uh brought to mind the thought that uh Obama in his books has always proclaimed himself as being anti-colonialist, and I think most people know that's probably why the British got uh the statue of Churchill back.
But uh here it is.
I'm looking at uh what he's doing to our country, and he is just uh turning us into nothing more than a colony state uh as we stand right now.
Of who?
Who's colonizing us?
Well, we're uh the the reason why we uh uh people left England was uh to avoid the colony and move here to have religious freedom and to Oh, I see what you mean.
Uh to break away from England, and here we are.
Uh we went through the uh we went through the taxation period, and that's why what triggered the actual break from England, and here we are, we're being taxed now before.
The left has been working on this for a hundred years, and we just happen to be alive at the moment.
They have apparently reversed course.
The UK Daily Mail headline: women spend more time ugly ogling, more time ogling other women than men do.
I have always known this, and now it has been scientifically proven, and I will carry this over to tomorrow and open line Friday, which will be here in 21 hours.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection