All Episodes
Previous Next
April 29, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:35
April 29, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
CNN is reporting that Jokar Sanaev is being quieter since he was Mirandized.
No.
Really?
You mean the suspect isn't saying anything since he was mirandized?
Who would have thought?
Anyway, that's a big news item on CNN.
They're having panel discussions about it.
Jokar talking less since being mirandized.
What was he supposed to start vomiting information once he was mirandized?
After he's told anything you say can be used against you, he's supposed to start speaking.
What am I missing here?
You know, every day I get it.
There are days I think I'm the one getting stupider.
Can you get stupider by knowing more than never mind?
I don't I don't even want to go there.
I want by the way, welcome back.
No, you don't get stupider by but we memized him and he's speaking less.
And we're supposed to go, wow, what if a that's that's big?
No, it makes perfect sense.
Well, maybe to you.
Yeah, why maybe to me?
Well, you know, you understand this stuff, but the rest of us, this is pretty cool news.
Oh, okay.
The Rachel Carson Carson business, I I want to put this all in perspective for everybody.
I I just what a turnaround her book, her phony book caused.
Think of this.
A Swiss chemist by the name of Paul Hermann Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948, quote, for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods, mosquitoes.
The guy who invented DDT got a Nobel Prize for Science.
Paul Herman Mueller.
As of 1948, Rachel Carson's book came out in 1972.
The silent killer.
Ten years after her book came out, the federal government banned DDT.
So just twenty-four years after the guy who helped come up with DDT and got a Nobel Prize for it, it's banned.
Because of a of a woman that well I isn't a characterizer, but it would be if your neighbor wrote a book on something with anecdotal evidence about bird eggs and the shells being made thinner and the birds die.
By the way, this environmentalist wacko claim that the earth would be beautiful and pristine and paradise if there were no humans.
Yeah, in whose eyes?
If there were no humans, who would see it?
Thank you.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, India is still using DDT.
Have we heard any stories about massive bird deaths in India?
Rachel Carson, 1962.
I've I've said 80, it said 77.
Rachel Carson's book came out in 62, and DDT was banned in 72, not 82.
And uh verbal typo, folks, verbal typo.
And fifty million African kids are dead.
More than AIDS, more than war, more than the folly of Bill Gates and Melinda raising or Donating millions for mosquito net tents to protect kids from malaria.
I don't know.
I just ever everywhere liberalism is dominant and triumphant.
Nothing makes sense.
Nothing makes any sense.
So six months after Hurricane Sandy, thousands of people are still homeless.
Looters are still raiding homes under repair.
People still don't have electricity.
People's homes still haven't been rebuilt.
And yet the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie says that Obama kept every promise that he made.
Kept every promise.
So there's a lesson here.
If you um if you are a public official, governor, for example, and a weather disaster happens where you live, whatever you do, suck up to the nearest bunch of liberals you can find.
And the media will love you, and whatever goes wrong will not be blamed on you.
Just amazing.
Trey Gaudi, who is a member of Congress South Carolina, Trey Gowdy was on Fox News Sunday.
Sorry, was on Fox News Saturday afternoon.
He said explosive congressional hearings over the attacks on the consulate of Benghazi are coming quickly.
He said there are more Benghazi hearings coming.
I think they're going to be explosive.
He's a member of the House oversight and government reform committee.
He wasn't able to give out too many details, but he hinted that the public for the first time might hear from witnesses to the terror attack that left four Americans dead.
I am bound by certain measures of confidentiality, but I would tell you that uh you're getting very warm when asked whether witnesses could be coming forward.
The hearings are coming sooner rather than later.
He said several questions need to be answered, such as why there was a failure of security, what happened during the siege itself, and why aid was not sent, and whether the testimony of Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was grossly negligent, or whether it was intentionally misleading.
Trust me when I tell you you will want to follow the hearings that are coming up.
Trey Gowdy to Fox News on Saturday afternoon.
Your 401k plan, there's more information now about what's about to happen to it if Obama gets his way.
Obama's new budget proposal aims to limit your nest egg by setting a cap on the amount of contributions you can make over the term of your life.
And that number is 2.7 million dollars.
At 2.7 million dollars, you can no longer, if he gets his way, that would be the maximum size of your 401k.
Now, Obama says the reason he's doing this is to simplify the tax code.
The proposal, if it becomes law, would be the first time there has been a limit on the balances one could build up in a defined contribution plan, such as a 401k or an IRA.
Peter Brady, a senior economist, at something called the ICI, said the proposal to place a dollar cap on individual retirement savings accounts would add complexity and confusion to a system of retirement savings.
Now why would anybody do this?
Let's let's trace the history of the 401k.
I remember when I where I was when I first heard about it.
Well, I don't remember exactly.
I don't know if I was in Kansas City or had moved to Sacramento when this thing was first proposed.
But boy, it sounded like a good deal to me.
What you could do was designate a certain percentage of your gross income to your IROA, uh, 401k or IRA.
And it was tax-free.
That amount that you put in your retirement plan would be deducted from your gross earnings, and you would then pay your income tax on what was left.
So if you could put 10%, if you make 50 grand, you could put 5,000 away per year, and your taxable income would be 45,000.
And this was done because at the time it was said Americans weren't saving enough.
So this was an incentive.
And it was a good deal.
It was a really good deal for a lot of people.
But then about three years ago, four years ago, the government decided that all of this tax-free money was costing them.
And they needed to get it back.
And so there was a professor at the new school, a woman, who came up with a proposal, and it was endorsed by George Miller, Democrat from California.
Because all of those $5,000 that I just mentioned, all of that money, the government wasn't taxing.
Why, it had amounted to billions and billions.
and since all money is governments they figured they had to stop this i always thought the purpose of the plan was for people to be able to provide their own retirement put less pressure on social security A defined contribution benefit plan inspired savings.
It built for retirement.
There were penalties.
You could go get the money before retirement age, but there were penalties if you withdrew it for an emergency or what have you.
So the incentive was clearly save it for your retirement.
A good thing.
Now the government feels cheated.
Because it's all their money, see.
So the proposal from the babe at the new school was the government will purchase everybody's 401k or IRA at the value it was a couple of weeks before the crash of 2008.
They'll just give you that amount of money and it goes into an account.
And then you can no longer make any contributions to it.
It only will grow by virtue of a government promise of one to three percent growth every year.
That's it.
Even if the market index grew 10%, doesn't matter.
They would say it's between one and three would be the guarantee.
Because they've got to stop this contribution aspect.
That's just costing them too much money.
Never mind that it was great for the citizens.
Never mind that it made all kinds of sense.
It was costing the government money.
Now Obama's come along and he wants to add to that plan by now saying that the maximum size any plan can be, any total account can be is 2.7 million dollars.
You know why?
Because that's all you need.
Obama believed that that's all you need for a comfortable retirement.
2.7 million dollars theoretically in his budget will generate an annual income of 200,000, and that's plenty.
You don't need anymore.
So the government's changing the rules in the middle of the game after telling you at the outset how great it could be.
Imagine if somebody were able to amass, I don't know, $5 million return.
Wouldn't that be good?
Wouldn't it be better if more people were taking care of themselves?
Wouldn't that benefit everybody?
And we don't want that to happen.
We don't want people to be independent.
And besides, you don't need any more than $2.7 million in your overall retirement account.
Who the hell are you?
That's more than that's more than you need.
We're being generous with You with that.
What the hell business is it?
In the case of your IRA or 401k, all of that is your money, bud.
All of it.
The fact that the government hasn't taxed it is their problem.
They set up the rule.
You didn't even demand it.
This is one of these things that just came along.
But you might end up having too much.
More than you need.
See, we've got a national debt to deal with.
We've got deficits to deal with.
And those deficits, annual debit, they're your fault.
It's because your IRA isn't being taxed enough.
That's why there's a deficit.
You're not paying enough taxes.
Not Obama's fault for spending too much.
It's not Congress's fault for spending too much.
It's not the government's fault because they're irresponsible.
Nope, it's your fault, Bud.
and we're going to limit you to 2.7 max because that's all you need This is the last thing Obama ought to be looking at.
Especially as a means of wiping out deficits and so forth.
All this means, once again, is that your independence, your self-reliance, is a threat to them.
Your being able to take care of your retirement is a threat.
Don't doubt me.
It's exactly what it is.
It's exactly how they see it.
Self-reliant individuals are the biggest threat liberals face.
Well, maybe not the biggest, but ranks right up there.
F. Chuck Todd of NBC News was on Meet the Depressed yesterday after the White House correspondence dinner.
And he said, in fact, I've got the audio sound, but let me, if Chuck, if Chuck, where's F Chuck here?
Looking, looking, looking.
F Chuck Todd.
Let's see.
Let's see.
Grab number 16.
Audio soundbite number 16.
This is F. Chuck Todd.
He's talking to David Gregory on Meet the Depress yesterday.
Gregory said, F Chuck, what were Obama's favorite targets?
I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and then the serious stuff about the internet, the rise of the internet media and social media and all that stuff.
He hates it.
Okay.
He hates this part of the media.
He really thinks that the sort of the buzzification, this isn't just about BuzzFeed or Politico and all this stuff, but he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse.
He hates it.
And I think he was trying to make that clear last night.
This is the White House Corpus Spending's dinner, and they talk about Obama's jokes.
And F. Chuck was, yeah, he hates all these blogs.
He hates all this new media.
He hates all this stuff out there on the internet.
And F. Chuck probably doesn't like it much either.
Because it's taking eyeballs away from NBC News.
But it's quite instructive.
Obama's supposed to be the big big savior of social media.
They love him in Silicon Valley.
Internet savvy savior.
And he hates it.
Because he can't control it.
The new media, the bloggers, and all of that, they're not part of the state-controlled media.
That's why he doesn't like it.
Obama told a joke at the White House Correspondence Center.
I mean, you you tell me if you think this is funny.
Obama said, my job is to be president.
Your job is to keep me humble, and frankly, I think I'm doing my job better.
That's not a joke.
That's a statement.
You guys ain't keeping me humble.
And you can't do it, is what he's saying.
I'm president.
You're never gonna cut me down.
You're never gonna make me normal or human.
You give it up.
Now no humor in that.
Here's Dan Terra Hot, Indiana.
Welcome to the EIB network high.
Thank you.
Uh my question, let's say player A comes Out and says he's gay, and he's a quarterback, running back, something like that.
Player B on the opposing team, sacks him a few times over a season or in a game.
Is that going to be considered a hate tackle?
And will Obama come out and say my son's not going to play because there's too much on football.
I have to tell you, isn't it?
I haven't even pondered this.
You got a gay quarterback or a gay running back, and there's um a vicious penalty that requires the referees to throw a flag.
Will the people on TV and the sports media say, I wonder if they hit the guy hard because he's gay.
I wonder if there's payback.
I wonder if that was a hate hit.
Given Dan, that we're talking about liberals in the media.
That wouldn't I hadn't even considered that.
But I don't I I can totally see that happening.
I can see that.
I can I can see the allegation that a particularly egregious hit could be alleged to be a hate hit.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, might we start hearing whispers, whispers, whispers, whispers, of perhaps a bounty on gay players on certain teams.
That kind of thing could be reported even if it wasn't happening.
If some reporter thinks it might happen, all he's got to do is raise the possibility.
Are there bounties in the NFL against the gay?
I hadn't even thought of that.
I did that.
Here is Mark in Pittsburgh.
It's great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing?
Megan.
Very well.
Thank you very much.
Hey, I wanted to ask ask you for thoughts on a couple items.
Uh, first of all, is Apple's earnings exceeded expectations in spite of the slamming they took from the drive-by media.
What do you think of that?
In the second, in the second quarter, what they just reported, yes.
Is that what you did?
I hear you right of you asking me if Apple's earnings exceed.
What are your thoughts about that in spite of the bashing they took by the liberal drive-by media?
Oh, oh, I I'll tell you this, well, this whole thing with Apple fascinates me.
I think it is a microcosm example of what happens all across this country in media fraud.
I think it's c and this is not just media fraud.
This is Wall Street analyst fraud as well.
You've got various analysts at various Wall Street firms who issue their notes to clients and they tell them we think Apple's a bad investment because they didn't meet the PD ratio, or whatever it is, or there's a problem in the supply chain.
Apple has been since last September deluged with negative upon negative upon negative report, and they still beat expectation.
They beat their own and they beat the analyst expectations.
And the stock is up big today as as a as a result.
I I think it's it's it's fascinating.
In other words, to put this in perspective, Mark, you have last week Apple reported results.
That would have been the envy.
Stick with me here because I know you got some other things you want to ask me.
Yes.
But but they reported results that any other company would kill to have.
Again today, because of the stock price rise, the most valuable corporation in the world.
They've they've they've launched, lurched past Exxon again.
And all during this period of time.
I can't wait.
I mean, I can't wait for the next thing that comes out from them.
You know it's gonna be fantastic.
Well, that's the expectation.
Well, no, the expectation is that it isn't gonna be fantastic.
The expectation is it isn't gonna be anything special.
The expectation is it's over.
The expectation is that the CEO Tim Cook is lousy and ought to be fired.
That's what Wall Street's saying.
That's what analysts, that's what the media is saying.
That it's over.
Ever since Steve Jobs died, this country's gone to hell in the hand company's gone to hell in the handbasket.
And they can't be saying Sam.
You know what's happening?
Look, folks, I can't be too critical.
This is capitalism.
This is it's vicious out there.
Competition is Samsung is paying a lot of people to blog how horrible Apple is.
Sam they did that against HTC.
And it is re I I shouldn't say this with certitude.
It is highly likely according to people who know that Samsung may be engaging in this process all because they lost that billion dollar settlement against Apple in in the uh in the infringement of of copyright but it's vicious out there.
But Apple hasn't said a word during all this they just keep trucking.
But the expectation is the iPhone no big deal anymore the iPad no big deal.
The latest news is that uh the supply chain's so screwed up that they're not going to be a new iPad mini until next year because they can't make the screens the iPhone 5S is not going to be anything special to it.
No nothing to see here.
New software it just it every day every day it's Apple's over and yet there is an auction get this the Robert F. Kennedy foundation for whatever is is auctioning various uh items one of them is 30 minutes to an hour with Tim Cook coffee with Tim Cook in his office.
You pay to get there but on Friday it was up to 600 grand and there's still 13 or 12 days to go on this.
It's going to top out at over a million dollars.
Now what's happening is that some people are bidding knowing full well they'll never get it because everybody that bids is made public.
So people are getting their names mentioned as having this much desire to see the CEO just talk to him about whatever for an hour Tim Cook.
No I'm I'm a I'm an Apple evangel even though they would probably cringe if I walked in the front door I'm sure they would I'm sure if I've walked in the front door they'd call security and say shut it down.
But I love him.
I just I I'm I'm dazzled by them and I I look at what's happening and it's it's kind of like uh Bush and the Republican Party every day they're assaulting it and Apple doesn't say a word and all these Apple fans and supporters desperate for Apple to say something.
Would you defend yourselves?
Would you come out?
Oh, yes.
Fantastic products.
It is.
What's the next thing you want to bring up?
What do you think of Tim Tebow for the Pittsburgh Steelers?
Could you imagine having Roethlisberger and Tebow in a dual shotgun in a play?
I don't think the Steelers are the team for Tebow.
Not with a dominant pocket passer.
You're not going to fool anybody.
You've got Roethlisberger in the shotgun with Tebow.
There's no you're going to fool anybody.
If you bring Tebow in, the Steelers bring him in, bring him in as a tight end or a running back, H-back or something.
He doesn't want to do that.
He wants to be quarterback.
Well, would split the pass rush and freeze all the linebackers.
Tebow would split the pass rush and, well.
Oh, you'd have to watch them both.
yeah but but how many times how many times a game are you going to bring him in to do that to surprise people.
I mean, you're not going to put him out there every play, so that kind of defeats.
And the Steelers are a fundamentalist team.
They're not gimmicks.
They're not going to do that kind of defense.
He's certainly undervalued right now, I would think.
Well, you know, somebody sent me a note before the program, and I can't believe whoever Tebow's agent is cannot be.
Two years ago, most popular, most intriguing player in the league, and today nobody wants him.
How did that happen?
And I think you can blame the agent all you want, but when John Elway says you can't play, play I'm sorry I don't know how you recover from that And John Lway made it plain that he doesn't think Tebow can play.
So the Jets bring him in, and the Jets bring him in for whatever and he didn't play with the Jets.
And if he didn't play with the Jets, and their quarterback situation like this, it's just it's really uh it's it's a curious thing, but he's he w he's he's he's heck meant on on being a uh on being a quarterback.
I just I don't think the Steelers are the place for Tebow given their structure.
What's the next thing you wanted to ask about?
Um I think that the uh Pittsburgh should rename the Rachel Carson Bridge.
Did he uh bring her a death bridge?
Uh she did kill more children than Planned Parenthood.
Well, yeah, I which bridge is the Rachel Carson Bridge.
I believe it's the one going to the uh the baseball stadium.
You live in Pittsburgh and you don't know.
I don't get downtown that often anymore, and I don't I'm so turned off by the whole Rachel Carson situation that I I don't even think about it because it's just it it it's sad on how many people suffered because of uh she wanted to sell a lot of books.
They must have named it the Racill Carson Bridge after I left, because I there were Yeah, they did.
It's uh that's a recent thing.
I would not have done that when I lived there.
Trust me.
Trust me.
Here's Eddie, San Antonio, Texas.
Hi, Eddie, great to have you here.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh, this is a tremendous honor.
Uh I've been listening to you since uh my dad was driving me to Little League Games in his car, so uh thank you very much for taking the call.
You bet, sir.
My uh my question for you is seeing as how Marco Rubio has been out in front of uh, you know, the immigration reform and and given amnesty, uh if your opinion that you've given on the show before that he would one day be president has changed it all.
Because uh like you, uh, you know, I've been severely disappointed in the way he's come out on this issue.
So I just wanted to get your attention to the right.
That's a great great question.
It's totally totally understandable that you would ask it, and I'm sure that a lot of people in the audience are wondering the same thing.
I think that Marco Rubio is a force of nature.
I think he's a force of energy.
I've gotten to know him very well.
This immigration business there's there's a lot going on here.
In a it i one of the fundamental things about what's happening now is that everybody, I shouldn't say everybody, but there's a there is a conventional wisdom of thought that whatever they do here is gonna die in the house.
So that allows politicians freedom to do what they think they must do to shore up support in certain groups.
Uh Rubio has uh I I think some uh a desire to make inroads in the Hispanic community.
And it he's the equivalent of a conservative black, trying to make it big in the NAACP.
The NAACP's not interested in conservative blacks.
La Raz is not interested in conservative Republicans.
They're interested in the rhino Republicans, but not conservative Republicans.
I think Rubio's trying to make inroads.
Um I don't know what's going to happen with this particular immigration.
I d I do know that Ted Cruz, I agree with him, I think he's right, and Obama does not intend for this thing to pass.
So uh the board budget or the border enforcements and all that, there's some questions that Rubio has to answer about that because he's he said one thing, and it appears maybe it it won't be he's not gonna hold as true to that as he said, but I I think overall when you hear him articulate his vision of this country and what it should be, I think he's a thoroughbred conservative.
I don't think there's any question about it.
Um and I, you know, I really wish I had more time.
I had chance to get your call earlier.
I've got to go because of time constraints.
But we will continue to talk about this, I promise.
Marco Rubio.
Just don't doubt me on this.
Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.
And we'll have more on this.
I've got to see you tomorrow, though, folks.
▲
Export Selection