All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:44
December 10, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, a serious sociological question.
Should the National Football League ban the automobile?
Should the National Football League request that all of its players turn in their automobiles?
I ask this seriously.
It was two weeks ago that Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend and committed suicide with a gun.
And there was an immediate outcry on NBC and elsewhere that guns are the problem and that we need to get rid of guns.
I submit to you, if you're really serious about saving lives, ban the wheel.
And I am dead.
The statistics are not even close.
The number of people killed because of the wheel, the invention of the wheel, which now has become a tire in the case of automobiles, but the invention of the wheel has led to the death of millions of people all over the world.
Billions, in fact.
The numbers of people killed by wheels or because of wheels dwarf the number of people murdered or accidentally killed by guns.
It's not even close, folks.
And yet there isn't any sentiment whatsoever to banning the wheel of the automobile, is there?
And of course not.
And I'm not suggesting that there should be, but if you take the logic of the left, it's the gun that kills people.
Well, it's the automobile that kills more.
And you don't need to be armed in an automobile to have somebody die as a result of your use of the automobile.
Now, I make this point only to show that the leftist arguments against guns have nothing really to do with death.
And they have nothing to do with risk or danger or any of the, I mean, the left wants you to think that every life is precious in their view.
And that this is just unfortunate.
It's so sad.
If they really cared all that much, they'd be leading the cause to ban the car.
But of course, it's impractical.
They all drive cars.
They all get to point A to point B with cars.
Airplanes couldn't land without wheels.
It's, of course, absurd.
But so is the argument that banning guns using, I mean, if you use their rationale, you'd have to say the wheel in the car should be banned long before you talk about banning guns.
But now we've got this problem in the NFL with the Cowboys where a player drove drunk and killed his good friend riding with him.
And it has sent shockwaves through the league.
And the headline of the story is, does the NFL have a drinking problem?
Right here in USA Today.
I would ask, is there any socio-cultural issue that's not a problem in the NFL?
Gambling, hoarding, seems like concussions.
No matter where you look, the NFL is riddled with societal problems.
This week, it's the drinking problem in the NFL.
Do you know the NFL has a program?
Stop and think of this.
They have a program.
Don't know what the name of it is, but whoever you are, if you're a player or an executive, you call an 800 number and they will send a car to take you where you want to go so you don't have to drive drunk.
It is free of charge.
It's not a tattletale program.
If you play for Team X and you call the number because you need to be driven home, the team never knows.
It's not a mechanism to find out what you're doing.
It's entirely commonsensical and safe.
There are no statistics on how many NFL players use it because it's not a tattletale program, so nobody knows.
The only time somebody brings it up is when an accident like this happens and it becomes obvious that the number was not called by this player for the for the Dallas Cowboys.
To the audio soundbites, I still have a lot here on the roster and the Save Lives program, Safe Ride Program.
That's what the NFL's program, Safe Ride.
Really, wherever you are, if you can't drive, if you're intoxicated, if you just don't want to, because you're tired, you call that number.
And the league has a contract with various car services wherever in America.
You get a car, half an hour, take you home.
And as I say, it's not a tattletale program.
But nobody knows how frequently, if at all, it's used precisely because it's not a tattletale program.
Okay, we're talking about the fiscal cliff, tax increases.
Will they or will they not happen?
Let's go to the audio soundbikes.
Back to the Sunday shows.
James Carville on this week, during a discussion on the fiscal cliff.
We want to raise taxes.
We want to raise tax rates.
We're very clear on that.
When you say you want to close loopholes, that does not count.
You have to tell us which ones.
Just a generic thing to say, we're going to close loopholes.
You're going to close charitable, you're going to close home mortgage, you're going to close state and local deduction, you're going to sell rates and local finance.
What is it that you're going to do?
Now, say what you want about Carville, but at least he's honest.
They want to raise your taxes.
They want to raise your tax rates and they want to eliminate these deductions.
But notice that all of these legal deductions are now loopholes.
And a loophole to a low-information voter is, you know what?
I'm going to stop saying low-information voter.
I'm just going to say average American.
The average American hearing loophole thinks way out of paying what you owe.
A loophole is cheating.
A loophole is a way to avoid paying.
That's what they think when they hear loophole.
That's why the Democrats use loopholes instead of itemized deductions.
And let's face it, most average Americans do not have itemized deductions.
They have an exemption here or an exemption there on the 1040 EZ form, and that's it.
But it said the New York Times has this story out today.
Jackie Kalmas, tax arithmetic shows the top rates, just a starter.
The article admits that increasing the tax rate on the rich won't even begin to address the problem.
Oh, no, no, whoever thought that was crazy.
We can't fix our debt problem just raising rates on the rich.
No, we have to close loopholes too.
So we start out with Obama offering or asking for $800 billion in new revenue consisting largely of closing loopholes.
And we hold out and we hold out and we hold out.
And finally, the pressure gets to be too much.
And John Boehner agrees to the $800 billion in loopholes.
Because the president himself said in 2011 that you could raise a million, a trillion, maybe $1.2 trillion this way.
Now the president is saying that math no longer works.
That you can't raise nearly enough money just closing the loopholes.
Now we've got to raise rates.
So after Boehner concedes on the $800 billion, guess what?
You know what?
We've looked at it again, Mr. Speaker, and really sorry, but it just didn't enough.
And here dutifully comes the New York Times.
And they've run their own numbers.
They've done their own math.
And they have concluded here that increasing the tax rate on the rich, that won't even begin to address the deficit.
So we need to adopt both of Obama's plans.
Increase the tax rate on the rich and Boehner's offer of doing away with tax deductions and loopholes.
So we get the worst of both worlds.
And that's where we are.
And that's what Carville is saying.
We want to raise taxes.
We want to raise tax rates.
We're very clear on that.
But when you say you want to close loopholes, that doesn't count.
So you see, Carville on ABC yesterday morning said to Boehner, you think you're going to get credit from us for offering $800 billion in loophole deductions?
That's nothing.
That's nothing.
You have to tell us which ones.
You can't just, in a generic way, say you want to close loopholes to get any credit for that.
You can't do that.
You've got to specify.
Do you want to take away the whole mortgage deduction?
You want to end charitable.
They're throwing it right back at Boehner.
Say, you tell us which loopholes that you are willing to get rid of so that none of it ends up with Obama fingerprints.
And why is this happening?
It's happening because Boehner decided to be bipartisan and agree with the concept that Obama announced a year ago, limiting deductions and loopholes and closing some of them to raise some revenue.
We'll be nice guys.
We'll be good guys.
We will concede that we need to raise some new revenue.
So Boehner does it and right on queue, that doesn't count, dude.
Who do you think you are?
You think we're going to let you get away with that?
No, no.
No, no.
We need the rates up.
And you tell us which loopholes.
You, Mr. Boehner, you specify.
You tell us right now.
Are you going to take the whole mortgage deduction away from people?
Is that what you want to do?
You want to close charitable deductions?
You want to shut down hospitals and churches?
Is that what you want to?
That's where we are.
Anybody paying scant attention could have predicted this.
So Carville then continued, same show with further information, further opinion on this.
We have not grown incomes in this country to any degree since the 70s.
And people have watched this come, and they've watched wars come, and they've watched tax cuts come, and they've watched bailouts come, and their incomes hadn't gone down.
People are saying, why am I paying for all of the mistakes that these guys made over the last 30 years?
I've had no growth in my income, and the top 1% has had 250%.
That's what the average guy thinks out there.
That's what the average guy thinks out there.
Average guy doesn't say, ever since Reagan started cutting tax out there, my life has fallen apart.
Yeah, 30 years.
That's not an accidental number that he comes with.
30 years ago, ever since Reagan started cutting taxes, my income hadn't gone up, and all these guys are getting richer, and we're bailing these people out.
And when the walls came and the tax cuts and more tax cuts and so forth.
And this plays right into Obama, that the country was founded fraudulently, unfairly, and immorally.
And we've had 230-plus years of all that mess, and now we've got to fix it.
And we're just getting started in rolling all this back.
So that's the official Obama Democrat position as announced yesterday.
Let's move over to Fox News Sunday now, where Chris Wallace was talking to Republicans.
In this case, Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee.
And Chris Waddell said, you know, a growing number of Republicans and conservatives, though not a majority, but a growing number are saying, look, we're going to have to cave on raising tax rates, not just the idea of closing loopholes.
Would you accept returning to the Clinton rate of 39.6, Senator?
Or would you accept something perhaps a midpoint like 37%?
Or starting with people who make $500,000 rather than $250,000?
So you see, the template is set, the narrative is established, and the leading questions are asked.
And we exist in this bubble where we have a problem and there's only one fix.
And do you agree with it?
Or will you modify it a little bit?
So, what it all boils down to is all your fault, Republicans, and therefore the solution has got to be all yours.
And so, just how flexible are you willing to be here in saving America?
And here's what Senator Corker said: A lot of people are putting forth a theory, and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2% increase that he's talking about, the rate increase on the top 2%, and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements.
And all of a sudden, once you give him the rate on the top 2%, it's actually much lesser tax increase than what he's been talking about.
The focus then shifts to entitlements, and maybe that puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves this nation.
So, there is a growing body.
I actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take to, again, shift the focus where it needs to be, which is on entitlements.
Now, I have to admit that I'm not nearly as smart as these guys.
So, can I ask a question?
I'm really serious here.
A, it's obvious now, listening to Senator Corker and to Carville, and there are others, Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma, and Bill Crystal, the Weekly Standard.
It's become clear now that the rich are to blame.
It's the rich's fault.
So, now we have Boehner has offered $800 billion in loopholes and deductions, closing them.
And Senator Corker said, you know what?
Let's go ahead and give the president his 2% rate or his rate increase on the top 2%.
And that will automatically shift the focus back to entitlements.
This is where I'm not as smart as these guys.
Because I need for somebody to explain to me how it happens.
How does giving President Obama his rate increase on the top 2% and eliminating loopholes and deductions all of a sudden shift the discussion to entitlements?
I don't understand how or even why that would happen.
I'm dead serious.
Why will Obama automatically feel pressure to start talking about entitlements once we give him everything he wants on the revenue side?
Can somebody help me with this?
How's that happen?
I'm dead serious.
I want it where, because I'm assuming that giving him everything he wants puts pressure on him.
Giving him everything he wants somehow puts pressure on him, and that will force him into talking about entitlement reform.
This is why I'm on the radio and these guys are in the Senate, because I don't understand that.
Well, I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's willing to talk about entitlement.
Seriously, I haven't ever heard him talk about it meaningfully.
I know he doesn't believe it, but so strategically, as a matter of negotiation tactic, I'm asking it in that vein.
How does that happen?
How does giving him everything he wants on the revenue side put pressure on him to now start talking about entitlement reform?
Here's Senator Coburn was asked by George Stephanopoulos: what is it going to take for you to sign on to a tax increase?
Well, significant entitlement reform.
Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems?
Yes.
And here's Bill Crystal from Chris Wallace.
Let me ask you about henceforth called the Crystal scenario.
They end up passing the halfway cave, a limited cave on tax rates.
That doesn't avoid the cliff, though, does it?
There'll be plenty of other opportunities to debate all these spending, defense, and entitlement issues next year.
My view is get the tax issue off the table.
It's the weakest one for Republicans' rights.
Let the president own it.
Okay.
I have to take a break here.
I don't understand any of this, folks.
No, folks, I'm just, I'm genuinely confused.
Senator Corker said, let's just give him what he wants.
So we're going to give Obama more money to spend.
We're going to give him $800 billion via rate increases on the top 2% and closing loopholes.
So we're going to give him $1.6 trillion.
And he's going to feel such pressure that he's going to immediately come to us and want to talk about entitlement reform.
Or maybe this is it.
Maybe what's going to happen is that after we give Obama all that money to spend, the media is then going to go to Obama and say, okay, the Republicans are being really patriotic and they're being really good.
They're being really nice guys.
Now it's time for you to step up and do a little giving in yourself.
It's time for you to start talking about entitlement.
Maybe they think that's going to happen.
And then Bill Crystal said, look, the Republicans are getting killed on this tax business, just like they're getting killed on single women under 30 and just like they're getting killed on immigration.
So let's let Obama have what he wants on taxes and take it off the table because it's hurting us.
And then next year, that's when we'll get the spending cuts and save defense and do the entitlements.
And, you know, these people are so much smarter than I am.
And they're in the Beltway and they're working in this world each and every day.
And I'm trying real hard here to understand how giving Obama $1.6 trillion to spend pressures him into then discussing reforming entitlements.
I just, there's got to be something I'm missing because I'm beginning to really question my IQ here.
I just don't.
And we're back.
El Rushbo here and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
See what I think is going to happen.
We give every Bama, give Obama everything that he wants.
And I guess, see, this is where I'm not smart enough to understand.
I guess the theory is that once we do our part, the media is then going to turn fire on Obama.
Yeah.
The media is going to then go to Obama and say, okay, buddy, it's time for you to pony up on entitlements now.
See, that's where I don't get it.
See, what I think is going to happen is if this all happens as it looks like it will, the Republicans let the rates go up on the top 2% and the entitlement, the loopholes get closed, then what will happen next is the media will go to the Republicans and say, now, why do you want to cut entitlements?
Why do you want to take health care away from old people?
Why do you want to cut Social Security?
This is where I'm not qualified to be in Washington because I think the Republicans are going to continue to be the enemy.
Even after they give Obama everything that he wants, the media is then going to then start pressuring Senator Corker and Senator Coburn into dropping any demands on the entitlements.
Why do you want to take money away from people?
Have you seen this economy?
Why do you want to hurt people?
They've paid for it.
They're paying for Medicare.
They're paying for Social Security.
Why do you want cuts in these programs for people?
That's what I think will happen.
But I mean, you can see what happened in Louisiana.
Well, let the Democrats own it.
Let it go over to Cliff and let the Democrats.
Oh, you mean like they got blamed for the lack of cleanup and repair at Hurricane Katrina?
Mayor Nagan and the Governor Kathleen, what's her face?
They got the blame like it's going to happen then, or like it did happen then.
Here's Jake, Clearwater, Florida.
Jake, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you, thank you?
I am fine.
Thank you.
But I'm feeling a little stupid today, but I'm hoping I can overcome it later.
Well, I don't believe there's any part of the Obama agenda that isn't tied to the Santa Claus factor.
And one area where we lost that last time was in the youth vote.
The university students that have been graduating over the last, let's see, four, three, two years while Obama was in office sat around and watched their parents struggle to keep their houses.
They lose their jobs.
Their dollar values have gone down.
House values have continued to drop.
But yet these youths who can't go out and find a job bought into the Obama agenda and supported them strongly.
So how do you explain that?
The Santa Claus factor.
He just gave more to them and promised them more than you can possibly.
Look at what you just described.
You just described the Utes who are seeing all kinds of economic damage while he's president happen to their families.
They are seeing their student loans skyrocket, which he owns, by the way.
They are seeing no jobs worth having, able to fulfill because they don't exist.
They are Living at home in many cases, having to move back home.
There's nothing that they went to college for out there for them.
By all reason and by all logic, in the past, they would blame the current occupant of the White House, who's been there for four years for creating this mess.
But no, they blame Bush.
Or for some reason, they think Obama is their solution.
They believe in magical thinking.
They believe what Obama tells them, not what they see, not what's happening to them.
It's the first time in my life this has happened, by the way, that people living through horrible economic times are not influenced by it.
The Republicans counted on that, and it didn't happen.
It was clear Romney was playing defense.
Everybody assumed that this economy was in such bad shape, going nowhere fast, that none of Obama's policies had worked in reviving the economy.
You know, the mistake that everybody made was, and you've put your finger on it in a roundabout way, the mistake we made was, was thinking they want an economy rebounding.
That's not what they want.
A rebounding economy means jobs, which means work, which means deferred gratification.
I'll never forget, folks, when I was growing up, I was telling one of my cousins' sons over the weekend.
We're having to talk about this.
He's not yet 30.
And he has expectations.
He wants a lot now, part of his generation, but he understands better than most the realities of life.
But I was telling him, you know, when I was growing up, when my father was growing up, they, meaning society, didn't let you become anything until you were 40.
You had to build up experience.
You had to prove you were trustworthy.
You had to prove you could do a job.
You had to prove that you were dependable.
You had to prove you were worth somebody investing a lot of money in you.
And that took a lot of time.
I remember when I bought my first house.
Well, actually, my second.
I don't count the first one because it was odd circumstances.
I had no business buying it.
There was nothing celebratory about it.
But the first house at Sacramento, I bought it from the developer.
And we're at a bar, a place called Maces in Sacramento.
And he said to me, and I'm not yet, I'm 37 or 38.
This is all happening to the Don't let you make any money until you're 40.
And I knew what he meant.
The they is not some conspiracy.
It was, it's just the culture.
You had to work a long time to prove you were worth being invested in, a large salary being the investment, earning a lot of being paid a lot of money.
Well, that you tell somebody coming out of college today, they're not going to let you make it to 40, and you've got a fist fight on your hands because they expect to have it made the day they get out of college.
The expectations are they're going to have what their parents had relatively immediately because some of their generation has.
They've come out big deals, lucrative deals on Wall Street and a couple other places.
So the expectation game has changed, is my point.
And there's not a whole lot of patience to sit around and work and work and work and slave away and slave away and have it finally pay off when you hit 40, just to use a round number.
So if somebody comes along and offers a benefit to you That can be realized much sooner than putting in a lot of sweat and toil till you're 40.
That's a part of our culture that is vanishing.
It's not totally gone.
Not saying that everybody has these demands to be fully vested at age 25.
But there are a lot who do.
And when it doesn't happen, there's hell to pay.
And they are open to a political argument that will blame a political party for their plight rather than, hey, you know what?
You just got to be patient.
It takes hard work.
It takes a long time.
You have to demonstrate over many years that you have talent, that you have ability, that you're willing to show up, that you're dependable, that you can be counted on.
It takes a while to build up that kind of experience.
It takes a while to learn enough to be able to do a job to the extent that you're going to be paid a lot of money for it.
That patience and such is just not present in as many people today as it used to be.
So that old adage, they're not going to let you make it till you're 40, that's out the window now.
And I'm not complaining about it.
It's just the way it is.
And if you're the Republican Party, you're going to have to come up with some answer to it.
And the Republican Convention answer apparently didn't sell.
Up from nothing, work hard, become somebody, become the best you can be, didn't sell.
Or maybe it was something else of the convention that didn't sell, but whatever, it didn't.
But immediate gratification, Santa Claus.
We care about you.
They don't.
That did sell.
I want to talk about these two radio people in Australia that have quit because of the suicide in the UK.
Not today.
I meant to get to it today, but I don't have time.
There's something very weird about this.
And I talk about it.
I'll leave it on top of the stack for tomorrow.
In the meantime, Michael in Lancaster, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Yes, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's a great pleasure to speak with the one true captain of the conservative ship.
Well, I don't know about that anymore.
I really don't think I'm smart enough to figure out what all is happening on the conservative side of things.
But I appreciate your comment.
Well, my comments about ever-increasing spending and ever-expanding government, there's only one way to get to the bottom of it.
You've got to get to the enablers, and that's the countries that are loaning America money.
People need to get on their computers and tweet to these countries, China, Japan, and any of the others that are loaning us money and let them know their poor dumb saps aren't going to get their money back.
Well, that's not going to work with the ChiComs.
They just ended up with a battery company.
The ChiComs are going to own the battery franchise for the electric car industry in this country if we're not careful.
Well, that was, in my view, a great mistake on President Nixon's part thinking that they've got a capitalist economy, but they got a communist government, and that doesn't look like they're going to get rid of the communist government.
No way.
No way.
You're exactly right about it.
As far as the ChiComs are concerned, our stimulus worked out great for them.
They pick up.
They've been underwriting our debt.
They pick up a battery company.
Obama's happy about it.
And even if what you wanted to happen happened, even if they stopped lending it, there's this thing called printing press in the Federal Reserve.
And it's called quantitative easing.
And they just keep printing money and then artificially keep the interest rates low.
There's no problem.
Don't sweat it.
Everything's fine.
There's nothing to worry about.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellences in the can.
And we are back in 21 hours.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate you being with us each and every day.
▲
Export Selection