All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:51
March 4, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hang on a minute.
I'm not ready.
I just got back in here.
I guess I have no choice.
We got to go.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
It's the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Rush Limbaugh here at 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Mike, uh grab audio soundbite number 29.
Spend more on this healthcare stuff.
Yeah, folks, I tell you, I we we are.
What would be a great way to describe where we are?
I mean, you all know, I mean, it's like as a country.
Think of a great military battle where everything's on the line.
Battle of bulge.
And we're this is it.
We're in it, and everything, I mentioned this last week, I think, and maybe week before.
Everything Obama is doing is aimed at the congressional, the midterm elections in 2014, and their target is the House of Representatives.
The only thing Obama cares about, and the only thing he's ever cared about is no opposition, eliminating any viable opposition.
Barack Obama is not interested in compromise, bipartisanship, getting along.
If there was if I could wave a magic wand, these package of low information voters, low information people who are not by don't misunderstand who these people are.
They're not dumb.
Some of them are.
But I mean, I'm that they're low information.
They just don't know.
And what they think they know isn't right.
And that's the real danger.
These are people who think they understand it all.
These are people, some are college students, college grads, they think they understand it, and it's what they don't know that's wrong.
Or what they do know that's wrong that is the problem.
And they they have bought hook, line, and sinker that Obama's a great healer, compromiser, wants to be bipartisan.
Uh, but man, it's just those Republicans, mean, extreme Republicans that just don't want to give him any credit for anything, and they won't agree with him on anything, and they won't move or compromise at all.
When in fact the Republicans have caved more than a sinkhole up in Tampa.
And ever get any credit for it.
But they've caved left and right.
The Republicans have compromised in ways that have damaged themselves with their own voters, is how much they've caved.
So Obama continues to campaign, not govern.
His name is not on any event that happens in this country that leads to problems.
I've just uh the Gallup is out.
Obama's approval number in the Gallup poll is at 47%.
And that's the lowest.
Most of the approval polls have him in the low 50s.
at 50 or barely above.
But I think the Gallup poll is an outlier in terms of the other polls.
But for the most part, half the country approves of the job he's doing.
Everybody in the country disagrees with the direction the country's going.
Fifty-five to sixty percent of the people oppose Obama's policies, but they don't associate his policies with the direction of the country.
That's all the Republicans.
It's the most amazing thing.
And it's because Obama is constantly positioning himself as fighting against all that's wrong, all that's going wrong, be it unemployment, be it health care, housing values, but it doesn't matter what it is.
Obama's trying to fix it.
Obama's trying to stop it.
And in the meantime, the country's hanging by a thread.
Founded.
The country is founded, it's hanging by a thread.
And it all revolves around the fact nobody has any money.
It really isn't any more complicated than that.
These governors don't have any money.
The states don't have any money.
The federal government doesn't have any money.
Well, they don't have nearly what they spend, but that doesn't matter.
They can print it or borrow it.
And as far as Obama's concerned, as far as the Democrats are concerned, they've got all the money in the world.
There's no deficit as far as they're concerned.
There's no national debt as far as they're concerned.
Doesn't matter.
They're going to keep spending and spending and spending because their objectives are to rip this country apart, tear it down to size and start again.
Now let's take a look at this no money business.
You know, it's a vicious cycle.
It's a vicious circle.
Why nobody has any money?
You've got two basically two theories on how a population or a society can be prosperous.
And in the capitalist free market version of this, in a very brief sense, people grow up, they learn to be self-sufficient, their parents instill in them morality, the rule of law, the concepts of right and wrong, self-reliance, uh rugged individualism, and being able to provide for yourself.
Human beings are the one mammal which totally incapable of helping themselves until they are quite old.
Your dog, your cat at six weeks, can leave its mother never to remember who its mother or father was and head off down the path and scavenge, convince somebody to adopt it, whatever, and it's over.
They take the six weeks, a horse is born walking.
A human being is born to socialism, in a sense.
Its parents being the socialist.
A human being is born incapable of providing for himself.
It's impossible.
And that is usually the case, with few exceptions, until that human being is well into their twenties.
But something has gone wrong in that.
We're no longer teaching morality.
We're no longer teaching rugged individualism.
That's selfishness now.
We're not teaching self-reliance because that equals people having more than others.
That some people are more talented than others and therefore have more or accomplish more.
That isn't fair.
It's not just.
People get left out that way.
Not everybody ends up being prosperous.
But in capitalism and free marketry, the lowest rungs of economic achievement are far preferable to the average rung of economic status being provided for by a government.
Because in that sense, you have no humanity, you have no dignity, and you have no resolve, you have no self-respect, you have no desire to do better, there's no incentive to.
And so a society seeks, as a whole, a society seeks its pursuit of excellence.
It ceases to try to be the best collectively and individually.
And this has been going on for 50 years, this vicious, vicious cycle.
And as a result of an expanding government providing more benefits for people earlier and earlier in their lives, lose their job, no big deal.
Here's a minimum 99 weeks of unemployment.
Here's food stamp cards.
And if you need a big flat screen or a cell phone, we can handle that for you, too.
And you'll probably have a couple of cars, maybe even a room in your house air-conditioned.
You don't have to work.
So why should you?
And if you haven't been taught, if you haven't been raised with this sense of achievement and pursuing excellence and being the best you can be, in fact, if you've been raised with the idea that that's unfair, results in inequality and lack of sameness, then you probably feel guilty or can be made to feel guilty over the fact that you've succeeded, or over the fact that you've been taught how to do well.
And so it's just a vicious cycle.
More and more people ended up becoming more and more dependent.
And of course, politicians were there to service that need because that's how they got votes.
And that's how they stayed in power.
It's taken minimum 50 years to get here.
And in some instances, you might say it's taken 230 years since the founding to get here.
It's been a slow and gradual process and in many ways unseen.
All of these things that I believe have been damaging to individuals in our country have been seen as compassion by many.
So now we're at the point where the private sector can no longer produce enough economic activity to provide opportunity for prosperity to a growing number of people.
Because the private sector is shrinking.
The money in that pie has been taken away by government.
So you have kids in college today.
Their graduations are far different things today than twenty years ago.
The first thing you note about a graduation today is there are no jobs to be had.
You might even have a college major in the mating habits of the Australian rabbit bet, and I'm going to serve you at all, but you've got your degree, but you've also got maybe six figures of student loan debt that people didn't have 20, 30 years ago.
So you're in the hole before you even get your first job.
That wasn't the case 20 or 30 years ago.
When you got out of college and started working, everything you made was gravy.
Or close to it.
So as the private sector has shrunk and the government's gotten bigger, and fewer and fewer people have learned about self-reliance and rugged individualism and themselves being the source of their prosperity.
As fewer and fewer people have been taught this, fewer and fewer people have been raised this way.
Remember how we're born.
I mean, you might argue with me semantically, but in reality, a kid, a child is entirely helpless.
A child is totally dependent.
This is why parenthood's such a crucial thing.
It's parents that wean kids off of dependency.
It's parents that tell kids, okay, time to get out of this house, start providing for yourself.
I'll tell you a little story about a friend of mine.
I'm not going to mention his name, but you would all know this man.
If he ever writes a book, this story will be in his book.
Two days before he turned 18, his father came to him and said, What are you going to do?
Well, I don't know.
I think I'm turned 18.
No, no, where are you going to go?
What do you mean where am I going to?
Well, you're 18.
You're not living here anymore.
This man's alive and working today, by the way.
I I'm not but you're 18, I'm not paying for you.
I'm not, I'm not.
You're on your own, bud.
I mean, if you want to stay here, you're paying rent.
But I've done it.
That was the deal.
You're 18, you're on your own.
And your brother, same way.
Two years.
When he's 18, he's gone.
What are you going to do?
Well, now that's an extreme case, but that's what parenthood was.
Parenthood was weaning kids off of dependency, teaching them how to provide for themselves, how to get educated, how to Maximize ambition and desire.
It was about promoting desire.
It was about inspiring their kids to want to be the best, to get educated, do everything they could to have lives better than their parents had.
That doesn't happen as much anymore.
More and more you travel around the country, you look at life in this country, and you you wonder how we've survived this long.
And so the the whole notion of where does prosperity come from.
Government is now the safety valve.
It used to be the safety valve.
Now government's the primary objective.
And I don't think people cognizantly grow up and say, well, I can't wait till I'm 21 so I can get on government benefits.
I don't it doesn't happen that way.
It just they grow up thinking that's what being a citizen is.
The government buys your lunch at school and your breakfast, and the government should take care of your health care.
Government should get you out of this jam or that jam.
It's not up to you to do.
It's not you don't know how.
You haven't been taught that.
You haven't been raised that way.
So the left takes advantage of the natural state of human birth, which is total dependency, and never weans children from it.
When the left gets hold of students in school, they expand on the notion that they really don't have control over what happens to them in their lives.
It's up to other people.
We all are in this together and all got to look out for each other.
And isn't fair when some do better than others, stigmatize those who do, stigmatize success.
But you see, the problem with all this is the government can't afford any.
The government can't afford to be the source of prosperity.
The government doesn't have any money until it taxes people who work or borrows it or prints it.
But the government doesn't have any money.
It cannot, it's like the stimulus, folks, the first Obama stimulus.
Most people thought that $800 billion that was sitting idle was going to be pumped into the economy, we're going to build roads and bridges, and that meant jobs, and that, oh yeah, $800 billion, that was economic growth.
Well, that $800 billion was not sitting idle.
It was in people's pockets.
And before the government could inject it into the free market, into the economy, they had to take it from people first.
So it was a net wash.
There wasn't $800 billion new dollars.
It was your money all along taken from you and then redistributed back.
Except it went to Obama's friends in the unions.
It didn't really go to roads and bridges or any of that stuff.
Anyway, we're now to the point where nobody has any money.
The states are out of money.
Individuals don't have any money.
Everybody's in debt.
And getting money is the first overall concern people have.
Not being Republican or Democrat, not being conservative or liberal, not George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, not the founding, not the Constitution, money.
Because you can't live without it.
So these Republican governors, they're told that they got to pick up increasing amounts of the Medicaid expense.
They don't have the money.
Here comes Obama dangling $300 billion per state that he doesn't have either.
We don't have any money, but he's dangling, and the governors will take it.
That's the easy way.
And they say if I don't, some other governor will.
Be back after this, folks.
I'll go in.
We're going to get to your calls quickly in the next segment, folks.
Keep in mind now that you're talking about weaning children, the role of parents in weaning children, even those parents who give it a shot today are met with what when the kids leave home?
Head start, big bird, daycare, any number of government programs which oppose any parent attempting to teach self reliance, rugged individualism, providing for yourself.
Then the kid gets to regular school and the same thing happens there.
So even the parents that are doing it right find opposition the second their kids leave home.
Both those programs, Head Start Big Bird are dedicated to indoctrinating kids as soon as possible and as much as possible.
I want you to listen to Jay Carney, by the way, this unrelated in a way it's unrelated.
But this was at the White House the breast briefing this afternoon.
A reporter said sequester cuts have begun taking effect now, Jay.
I'm wondering what we should be expecting from the White House.
Are officials going to be trying to point out negative impacts of the sequester?
Is there any effort that's going to be underway to try to build some type of public reaction to pressure Washington to avert these cuts?
What he's basically saying, are you gonna bring a bunch of people up here for us who are suffering so that we can report on it?
That's what he's asking.
He wants the White House to do his job.
I want to report all the suffering in a sequester, Jay.
Are you gonna be directing us to those people?
I'm sure you will be hearing about these impacts from Americans themselves, who uh will wonder why Republicans made this choice.
Why they wouldn't go along with uh what they did two months ago, why they wouldn't go along with balanced deficit reduction, uh why they chose protecting tax blue.
Stop this.
Stop it.
See, the the reporters are waiting for the White House to rim sob stories.
Gene Sperling admitted on TV yesterday the sequester was Obama's idea, and even now, a day later, they still blame the Republicans for it.
Back in a moment.
Back in a moment.
Okay, time to go to the phones, and we're gonna start in Maple Shade, New Jersey.
Hi, George.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hey Rush, how you doing?
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I got one point that I was talking uh to your uh screener about, and that's you know Obama knows that the Soviet Union spent itself to death trying to keep up with Ronald Reagan's Star Wars.
And I think he has the intention of breaking the United States and breaking up the Union in the same way that happened to the Soviet Union.
Well, two things that's his agenda.
I really do.
You think Obama's agenda is to what did you say destroy the union.
Destroy the Union.
Yep.
Replace it with what?
I some kind of socialistic hodch podge or whatever.
I just think he wants it to be bankrupt.
He wants to remove us from being number one.
Why?
Why does he why is do you have any idea why in your mind when you think about this, why does he want to do that?
Do you think?
Well, I guess you know, you can get some of the ideas.
If you look at uh dreams from my father, if you look at his association with Sololinsky and community organizing, if you look at his association with Reverend Wright, if you look at his association with heirs, I mean, it's all there.
Yeah, but but what's that?
Why?
Well, what why did those guys want to destroy America?
Because we are that l that shining city upon the hill, as Monald Reagan said.
We have we are the hope of the world.
Our freedoms, our belief in individualism, our belief that you do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because somebody's watching you and going to get you.
Right.
Well, why do they disagree with that?
Because it's in their nature.
They hate us because of what we are.
That's so hard for me to get my head around.
I I I don't you know, I'm six I'm sixty-two, and I still intellectually, I know there are people that hate this country, but I don't understand it.
I I of all the countries on the world to hate, this isn't the one.
I don't understand it.
And just in a purely visceral emotional way.
Intellectually, I understand liberalism.
I understand what it is, the unfairness, the inequality, the unjustness, all that.
I understand the liberal mind better than they understand their own minds, but I still can't come to grips with the fact that people really hate this country.
You think Obama wants to have this country implode like the Soviet Union did.
I can't see any other law.
Well, what happened?
The Soviet Union tried to go capitalist when that happened until Vladimir Putin came back.
Well, they spent their way into uh uh you know into oblivion.
Well, but the Soviet Union never was the United States.
The fact of the matter is, Soviet Union was a third world country with a first world military.
Their people starved, sometimes on purpose.
Their department stores were empty, they did not have any technological advancement except in their military.
Their citizens had to drink vodka to get through the day.
They it was misery.
It was abject misery, and in every Soviet satellite.
That's not the case with the U.S. The U.S. is the exact opposite.
Now what Reagan said, Reagan said, he always believed that the Soviet Union would implode be uh without anybody firing a shot.
Nobody would ever have to.
He said it would implode because of its own immorality.
And communism is the absence of morality.
It is the absence of standards, and he thought that it would have to.
It would just have to collapse on itself if it didn't make changes.
Now, the popular theory, Margaret Thatcher put forth the idea that it was in fact our promise to do the strategic defense initiative that told Mikhail Gorbachev that it was over.
There's no way.
See, they knew we could.
They knew if we set our mind to actually have a missile defense, we could do it.
And maintain our prosperous society at the same time.
Gorbachev knew that he couldn't, couldn't keep up with that, and not have a country.
And so we got Glasnost and Paris Troika from Gorbachev, in which he tried to parcel out freedom to individuals while maintaining a communist government and didn't work.
Because once people get a taste of freedom, that's it.
They don't they don't want any more yoke of totalitarianism around them.
So he was he he bombed out, didn't work, communists got all ticked off, and they went away and they saved up their goods and now they're back with Putin and the KGB.
It took a while, but they're back.
Now the U.S. is the exact opposite.
What you're saying is that you think Obama wants to turn this country into what was the Soviet Union before it imploded.
That's what you're saying.
That he wants this country to become a communist country.
If you have if that if you say that Obama's trying to do to this country what Gorbachev did, well, the Soviets destroyed their country.
I th I think that Obama's got a chip on his shoulder about this country.
I think he's been raised and educated like every other liberal in America has to believe that our founding was unjust and immoral and set up for a precious few white people, and everybody else got the scraps,
and that we were a slave country, and that we're filled with racism and bigotry and discrimination and homophobia and syphilis, and you name it.
And for this reason there is an instinctive dislike.
They also, I know that Obama looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to what he wants.
I mean, he is desirous of more and more and more power.
Every time I hear him say he's not a dictator, he doesn't complete the statement, but I wish I was.
So you think that's where he's headed.
You think that's that's uh that's what he wants to do.
But according to Reagan's theory, that will someday have to implode on itself because of the lack of morality.
And by the way, that's the lack of morale morality.
That's not an insignificant statement, by the way.
You know, people laugh at morality these days.
Morality is an old-fashioned concept.
It's really it's it's it that's old people care about that.
The young hip Barsteen crapity, what the hell's that?
It's just that's for old people.
But it really is.
It's uh this whole country was founded on the sense of morality, right and wrong, as uh two basic concepts, which are discernible.
But the left wants even those lines uh blurred.
But whatever Obama really wants, and whether he knows what he's doing, the fact of the matter remains that the 230-year-old engine of prosperity in this country is under assault.
The characteristics of this country that led us to the most prosperity the world's ever known, superpower status and all is under assault.
There's no question about it.
That is undeniable.
Now, some people think it's being done on purpose, others think these clowns have no idea what they're doing, they're a bunch of idealists and uh they think they're actually trying to improve things.
There's any number of theories about this.
But if you strip away all the theories, there's nobody that can deny that our economy is worsening, that prospects for its improvement are worsening.
There's a general malaise throughout the country, a general dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the way things are and the direction we're going.
What's stunning to me is that nobody associates any of that with the government, other than Republicans.
They don't associate any of this with Obama.
That's never happened before.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
George, here's Alicia in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.
Great to have you on the EIB network high.
Oh, thank you for taking my call, Rush.
I'll get right to it.
I am a little confused.
No, I'm very confused.
I have a question about the sequester for you.
As I understand it, this whatever, two point one percent cut was really not a cut.
It was just a cut in the rate of growth.
That's very true.
The government is still going to have more money this year than they had last year.
They're still going to get increases uh for all their programs.
So if that's the case, why are they furloughing people?
Why are they letting people out of illegals out of jail?
Why are they doing all of this when they got more money this year than they had last year?
Because it's not as much money as they thought they were going to have, which they've already spent.
It would be like it would be like you in August of a calendar year telling yourself that you're gonna get the money in December to go buy a new 100,000 car.
Okay.
And then the money you get is only enough to buy an eighty thousand dollar car, but you go buy the one hundred thousand dollar car anyway because you're mad.
Yeah, I'd be stupid.
The federal government is going to actually spend fifteen billion dollars more this year than last year with the sequester.
There are no cuts.
You're right, there are simply reductions in the rate of growth.
Uh what do you really you you don't know why they're doing this?
You don't know why they're letting the prisoners go.
You don't know why they're they're furloughing these people, are you being facetious?
Well, I'm sort of being facetious.
It's just a big lie, is basically they're trying to scare everybody so they'll get more money.
They want the American people to believe that even a dime cut from the federal budget will lead to economic chaos and misery for every citizen.
It is simply a technique that they're employing to see to it that the country, the people of the country never ever support government ever getting smaller.
That's the primary objective here.
Well, then we're gonna implode on ourselves.
I'm gonna collapse at some point.
There's even though we can borrow money and print it, at some point that it is gonna happen.
At some point, people today, 25 years old, are gonna face aggregate tax rates of 78 or 80 percent.
And then the question becomes will they bother working when they only get to keep 20 cents of every dollar they earn?
Will they even bother work?
Here, before I go to the break, grab sound bite number uh thirty.
Back to Jay Kearney.
Now remember, you just heard the press in our previous bite, just ask Jay Carney, Jay, are you gonna have examples of people suffering for us?
And is that your that that that's not the words he used, but this lazy reporter basically wanted to know.
He said, are officials gonna be trying to point out negative impacts of the sequester, meaning the translation for that, Jay, is President Obama gonna bring a bunch of people who are suffering because of the sequester up to the White House for us to interview as he announces a new program.
The Democrats have this endless parade of the suffering every time they want to spend more money.
So the reporter was asking.
And Jay Carney said, I'm sure you'll be hearing about these impacts from Americans themselves.
Meaning they're already arranging this.
They're already arranging a parade of people to be on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, you name it, of actual sufferers from the sequester.
Complete with detailed stories.
That is upcoming.
So then the next question is from Ed Henry at Fox.
I understand Republicans ended up voting for the sequester.
They bear some responsibility here.
But does anybody here at the White House regret the fact that people inside this White House came up with this idea in the first place?
The fact that it's called that was because that's what it was called back in the 1980s, uh, under the deficit reduction package known as Graham Rudman Hollings, the President Reagan signed uh when they had uh a trigger, a spending cuts only trigger that was evenly divided between defense spending and non-defense spending.
And uh it's true that that was put on the table as part of the demand for a spending cuts only trigger, the let's do it the way they did it back under President Reagan.
Our team said to Republicans seeing that dealing.
Not just this year's Republicans are to blame Reagan did this.
Reagan's the father of this crap.
Reagan is the father of this spending only trigger.
Reagan's the father of this suffering.
Reagan did it.
And so the media has now been given its marching orders.
Find people, we'll provide them for you, actual sequester sufferers, and then they are to find ways to tag this to Reagan.
We'll be back.
We'll be back.
As usual, uh uh, ladies and gentlemen, forty-eight percent of my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
We go to my adopted hometown, Sacramento, California, and Sean, it's great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Hello, uh I'm really honored to speak with you.
I'm almost completing 30 years at the Institute for Advanced Conservative State.
That's that's true for him because 1984 is the uh the beginning air day for this program.
You're right.
I appreciate that, sir.
My blood pressure dropped a good 20 points the day after you started.
That's great.
I appreciate that.
But what I wanted to I I'm really alarmed at uh your explanation for the sequester and how it's working, because almost all the women I know believe has a sequester you know, there's a telling about the sequester, but that's the way the world works.
Uh I can't tell you how many women will get a coupon from the uh a department store, and then you know it's a ten dollar coupon and it's gonna expire uh expire in seven days, and so they have to go out and spend that ten dollar coupon.
They don't spend just ten dollars, they'll spend sixty dollars and then come home and tell me, look how much money I save.
Yeah.
Well, but the Democrats are doing.
You think money.
Yeah, but let's let's be very careful here.
You uh you think this is exclusive to women in them in this kind of thinking?
I know plenty of guys that buy cars this way.
Oh, okay.
And that's how they tell their their wives they save money.
Uh honey, I was gonna buy that hundred dollars Mercedes, but I just I got that SUV for $75,500 save $25,000 here.
I mean, you ought to be giving me some credit, Mabel.
I mean, this uh this works both ways.
Okay, I think um uh I think the word sequester just bamboozles people.
What is it mean?
When you hear the word sequester, what does it mean to you?
Seriously now, what does it mean?
In a way, they group you, they you the sequester you away from the group.
They uh yeah, they sequester the jury away from the media and from other people in the case.
Um a sequester is sort of like a prison.
Or uh it it's it's uh they they they they segregate you.
I don't know that just in the sense, given our low information voter population, just the term sequester is not helping.
Even though that's what it really it's sequestration, and it can be explained perfectly.
Just people hear that word, I'm I'm sure they panic.
A brief timeout here at the top of the busy broadcast hour, ladies and gentlemen, and much more straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection