All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:36
December 9, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbo and the excellence in broadcasting network.
And I am your host, America's real anchorman.
America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, doing the job the mainstream media should have been doing and hasn't really been doing in decades.
Great to have you, folks.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
And the email address lrushbow at EIB net.com.
So a die guy dies and goes to heaven.
He says, God, why do you make women so beautiful?
God says, so that you will love them and have babies and perpetuate the race.
And then the guy says, Why do you make them so dumb?
So that they will love you.
I love these stereotypical.
I mean, that's that that is the that's the mother of all sexist jokes.
But in in all great comedy, there's always a grain of truth in there.
And if you are just joining us, I I I kid you not, a bunch of leftists have engaged in research that has led them to believe that we need to enforce new rules that would prevent men from checking out women, prevent men from looking at them because it's a put down.
It's objectifying, it treats women as second-hand, third-hand citizens, and makes them uh just nothing but sex objects.
We can't have that.
And I'm not kidding you.
This is something they're going to be on to now.
It may take a while to percolate.
But controlling thoughts and controlling activities is what they're all about.
Now, this subject matter of wealth and poverty.
I wanna I want to say again that poverty is the natural state, has been the natural state for the vast majority of people who have lived on this planet since the beginning of human history.
And this is uh that's not a statement of opinion, and there's no opinion attached to it.
It's just fact.
And it has been the attempt to escape that poverty which has driven people since the beginning of time.
However, you want to phrase it, describe it, the the attempt to improve the standard of living to seek a better life, has been the quest of practically everybody since the beginning of time.
Most people, though, have uh have failed to realize their dreams in this regard until the United States of America came along.
And then once again, good old American exceptionalism, meaning simply that we are the exception to what had become standard operating procedure or the rules for most people.
Most people lived in poverty, most people lived in tyranny.
Most people lived uh under tyrannical government leadership, even if it was just a small little village.
The number of human beings who have enjoyed the freedom with which they were born is very tiny when compared and measured against the entire human race.
And it's again part and parcel of the explanation of American exceptionalism and attempt to have some people understand what's special and blessed about this country.
So the the quest has been for wealth, and that gets defined many different ways.
But poverty has been the standard.
Poverty is what has been reality for the vast majority of people.
Now there is a there's a piece here.
I've got a the Associated Press.
And it's uh it's by a woman Named Hope Yen, fully 20% of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives, wielding outside influence, outsize influence on America's economy and politics.
This little known group may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation's income inequality.
Now, folks, that paragraph is astounding.
The paragraph acknowledges that people move in and out of income brackets.
It acknowledges that, but then says that the wealthy are the barrier to income inequality.
No, having an economy that creates wealth, having a system that produces and creates wealth, is what gives people the opportunity to escape poverty.
If people cannot escape poverty, there is no lower middle class.
If there is no lower middle class, there isn't a middle class, there isn't any advancement.
And it's not capitalism that keeps people in poverty.
It is capitalism that has allowed the vast majority of people living under it to escape it.
It is governments.
It's tyrannical leaders that keep people in poverty.
It is leaders who believe in big governments and high taxes to support them, which keeps people from accruing wealth.
Do you know what one of the biggest obstacles to creating or accruing wealth is?
The income tax.
Maybe the single biggest obstacle.
Because the income tax takes from you your disposable income.
The income tax, by virtue of its existence, practically assures that people will not get wealthy via income.
And yet that's how most people get their money is via income.
As opposed to people who are born to it and inherit it, or as opposed to people who born to it, inherit it, who have wealth, but not through income.
Ordinary income is the income associated with work, a tax term, ordinary income.
There's other kinds of income, the income from investments, and they're not taxed at the rate that income is.
Capital gains, it's called, and the tax-raven capital gains is even now lower than it is on income.
Now, Bama wants to raise it just to be fair, he says.
But the income tax is one of the biggest impediments.
And raising income taxes, while portrayed as something compassionate, good and decent for all, it's actually an impediment.
And it is a government's way of keeping people where they are economically.
I mean, after all, if if income is the only source you have for the money you've got that you get from working, and if the tax on work and income derived from it constantly goes up, you're gonna have less money no matter how hard you work.
This is the argument for reducing taxes.
Reducing income taxes specifically.
It incentivizes more work.
It leads to more wealth creation, it creates more jobs.
Lowering taxes gets more people hired.
If the business has to pay less in tax to the government, it's got more money to hire and pay people to work for it.
This is amazingly still a big argument.
And everything I just mentioned to you, the Democrat Party, Democrat Party totally disagrees with.
They believe in redistribution, taking as much from everybody, and then giving it to people they think are disadvantaged or discriminated against.
And in the process, everybody becomes lower middle class over Time.
So we have people in poverty, and the Democrat Party, leftists and so forth, speak of them as though they are the virtuous ones.
The people who have worked hard, who have escaped poverty, who have gone through the various income levels to become middle class, upper middle class, rich, wealthy, they all of a sudden have become the enemies of the country.
So while we, on the one hand, encourage people to escape poverty, when they do, we treat them as suspects.
We target them.
And then we start blaming them for the evils, the societal and economic evils that exist in the country.
And yet how you get asinine pieces like this in the associated press.
It's not just the wealthiest 1% of the problem.
Fully 20% of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives.
That means not their whole life.
That means they get rich and they fall out of it and they lose it and they earn it back.
I had a friend down here, guys who's passed away.
You might find this hard to believe.
This man lost 200 million dollars three times.
He was in commodities, was in any number of things.
He was a World War II ace.
Just a prince of a guy, but he had this knack for earning money and losing it.
The wealthy are not wealthy forever, and the poor are not poor forever.
But the Democrat Party wants you to believe it, everything is static.
But even this idiot for the AP stumbles into this when she writes, fully 20% of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives.
Meaning not always.
But then get what's get what follows.
These 20% wield outsize influence on America's economy and politics.
Meaning these people with all the money, they have way too much to do with economic activity.
Well, kind of stands to reason, doesn't it doesn't it?
But if you have a lot of money, you're going to spend it.
If you have more money to spend in somebody else, you arguably have more economic influence in somebody else.
But why is the economic influence of the so-called wealthy automatically bad?
Because the Democrat Party can do mathematics and they realize that 80% of the country isn't.
And all you have to do is tell that 80%, you're never going to get rich because the Republicans have stolen all your money and are going to keep all your money once they take it.
And they're never going to give it back to you.
Trickle down doesn't work.
Once the rich get their money, they're going to keep it, and you're going to starve unless you vote for us.
Talk about massive PR campaigns.
But this paragraph, it finishes with this silly sentence.
This little known group, little known to 20%.
By the way, it is common for economists, which is where this writer would get her information.
Economists divvy up income in the in this country into quintiles.
They do it five groups.
And that's why she is talking about it in that sense.
This little known group, the top 20%, now not the top 1%, They were evil, but now the top 20% joined them.
I'm sure this woman got the memo from the regime.
This little-known group, the top 20%, may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation's income equality, because they might resist having their money taken from them and given to other people.
And if they do that, they're mean and they're selfish and they're greedy and they don't care about people with less and they just care about themselves.
The top 20% now are the evil rich and they hoard it and they don't spend it and they don't give it to you.
And it doesn't trickle down.
And they are the biggest obstacles to reducing a nation's income equality.
I'm going to tell you right now, the biggest obstacle To reducing income inequality is Barack Hussein Obama and his political party.
If you want to know what the biggest thing in your way to an improved standard of living, higher pay, a more rewarding career, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party and their economic policies.
They are the roadblock.
They are the fork in the road.
However, you want to visualize something in your way, they are it.
The growing numbers of the U.S. poor have been well documented, writes the AP, but survey data provided to the Associated Press detail the flip side of the record income gap, and that is the rise of the new rich.
Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples, and more educated single people.
The new rich are those with household income of 250,000 or more at some point during their lives.
That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top two percent of earners.
And they are the problem.
Now who are we talking about here?
Largely older professionals, working married couples.
Remember the attention we gave last week to the assault on the nuclear family.
Basically the assault on the traditional standard American family unit, which has led to the greatest prosperity in the world.
It's under assault, and without stating it, that's who the AP is attacking in this story.
Working married couples, more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of 250 grand or more at some point, not their whole lives, just have to do it a couple of months, and they're still evil.
That puts them even temporarily in the top 2%.
Outside, even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the 100,000 plus income range, keeping them in the top 20% of earners.
Companies increasingly are marketing to this rising demographic, fueling a surge of mass luxury products and services.
From premium Starbucks coffee and organic groceries to concierge medicine and VIP lanes at airports.
So you see the rich taking care of themselves.
And now we're talking about a hundred thousand dollars or more.
They're the ones that go to Starbucks.
They're the ones that have VIP lanes at the airport.
They're the ones who do all the organic food buying.
I'm talking about this because Obama has said that growing income inequality is the defining challenge of our time.
And that's very frightening because this man is going to do more to widen that gap than anybody you have ever seen.
Let me ask you a simple question, folks.
Wouldn't you think it's a good thing that 20% of the population of this country could be called rich or wealthy or whatever?
Try that in Africa.
Try that in the Middle East.
Try that anywhere else.
If you went to anywhere else and said 20% of the population had a standard of living sufficient to call them rich or wealthy, they would be celebrating.
And here in America, what are we doing?
We think we got a problem.
We think we've got a problem.
20% are rich.
It wants, it's not just the top 1%.
That was bad enough.
Now it's the top 20%.
They've got a crisis.
They got to do something about it.
More people are getting what they call rich.
250 grand is not rich.
But for the purposes of the AP and their propaganda, it it sullies those people who earn 100 to 250, and that's what Obama and the Democrats wanted.
It's this astounding.
Our whole lives we hear we got to get people out of poverty.
We got to help the poor.
We help them get out of it, and we make them suspects that right thereafter.
I'll say these people, these people on the left, I get some days.
If I actually stop and think about it, I can't tell you how literally viscerally angry I get.
Let me go to the phones, Morton, Illinois.
Matthew High, your next on the EIB network.
Hello.
How are you doing Rush?
Good.
Thank you, sir.
I uh just wanted to make a comment about the uh liberal power grab that they're trying to make about these new rules for not oogling women.
Right.
Um I think it's interesting that uh there's a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton uh wanting to run for president, and uh you know, the comparison that you made of conservative women to liberal women and how the conservative women are more often the more attractive.
There's no question about it.
If we're gonna be honest, if we're gonna be there's just no question about it.
It's not even arguable, but even that is the insensitive and unfair to point out.
Well, the the timing is impeccable.
They're trying to level the playing field before Hillary makes a run at the president.
Oh, I see where you're going with this.
We make it illegal to look at pretty women, which means don't look too much at conservative Republican, we're particularly candidates.
Exactly.
Right.
Sort of leveling the playing field for Hillary, you're saying?
Yes, absolutely.
Uh thought of it that way, but you know, I wouldn't.
We don't want them, the voters to judge her by her looks, judge her by her politics, even though those can't win with conservatives either.
And and in doing so leveling the playing field for her.
Right.
Right.
So instead of looking.
Well, they just don't.
They just yeah, yeah, I get they just don't want us to see elephants.
Yeah.
Or think we're looking at them.
I get it.
Let me share with you just one more from this AP story.
Now look, folks, I'm gonna tell you what's frustrating.
Again, this is this is part of the soap opera.
That this is this is something that the left recycles predictably.
I've been reading about this, I've been aware of it for well, certainly all 25 years of this program and even longer.
And it's the demonization of achievement.
The demonization of success, because not everybody has it.
Listen to this.
As the she's she's writing hope, yen is the AP reporter.
She's writing here about this this new 20%, sometimes rich.
They're not rich all the time, but for part of their lives they're rich.
And they are to be hated and resented as the fastest growing group based on take home pay.
The new rich tend to enjoy better schools, better employment, gated communities, making it easier to pass on their privilege to their children.
Can I tell you how that just ticks me off?
These people, what are they?
Criminals.
As the fastest growing group based on take home pay, the new rich tend to enjoy better schools.
Everybody wants that.
Everybody seeks that.
That's what the American dream is.
The United States of America is the only country on earth.
That look, not only.
There are there are countries who have emulated us, who have done a fairly decent job uh in in in terms of economic freedom.
We're not the only well, we're the we're the we're the leader.
So now it's it's it's it's uh what is it, a stench?
It's a it's a crime.
It it it's uh something to be suspicious of that somebody's enjoying better schools.
Isn't that what the Democrats are constantly telling us they're gonna provide us?
The Democrats are always telling us vote for us, so we'll rebuild your schools, better schools, better teachers, better jobs, but They never deliver.
They keep everything mediocre.
They deny individual advancement.
They don't even believe in it.
If it doesn't come from them via some government program, it's not real.
And it's to be suspected.
Why in the world?
What is in it for anybody to be taught to resent?
Success.
This is what's wrong with the left.
In a country like this, where there is a higher standard of living than there is anywhere else in the world, when there is more opportunity, economic, political, whatever, anywhere else in the world, when it happens and when the disparities naturally, and the by the way, the disparity exists everywhere, no matter what system.
Even in socialist Marxist countries, you've got the rich.
They're the people in government.
And there's a huge gap between them and everybody else.
That's deep.
There's well fewer, but it's still deemed to be okay.
It's okay that Fidel's wealthy, it's okay that Chairman Mao's wealth.
It's okay that Hugo Chavez was.
It's okay that Obama is.
It's okay that Clinton is.
But it's not okay that some schlub and Oshkosh might be.
But the point is, when these inequalities, inequities, when these differences pop up, what is the instinctive action the left wants to take?
They want to lower everybody.
If you divide the economy into five or the nation's people into five income groups, and the top quintile is, let's say the top 20%, and then you've got the bottom 20.
What do the Democrats want to do?
They want to take those people in top 20 and move them down.
They never ever contemplate taking people in the bottom quintile and next to bottom quintile and elevating them.
At least not by virtue of individual achievement, initiative, ambition, and advancement.
If there's any economic improvement to go on, the Democrats want it to come from them via a government program.
And it has been proven since the beginning of time that government programs cannot increase the wealth of the population of a country.
They can take care of the leaders.
They can enrich themselves, but there is not a socialist program piece of legislation.
It has never, ever worked, and it never will work.
The sad thing is that so many Americans now somehow just are made to feel satisfied when they hear the Democrats say that the rich are going to get punished.
When the rich are going to have their money taken away from them.
That's applauded.
You go right ahead and do it.
It doesn't change their lives at all.
Doesn't improve their standard of living, but they have been conditioned to feel happy when people who have more than they have have it taken away by force by the government.
A truly compassionate leader, a truly compassionate country, would seek to elevate, and this is what conservatism is, my friends.
Conservatism wants the best for everybody.
Conservatism, conservatives want everybody to be the best they can.
Conservatives want everybody who wants it to improve themselves and to be able to, and to get government obstacles out of the way.
Now we realize some people are going to end up higher on the ladder than others.
That's just human nature.
Some people want it more.
Some people are willing to work harder for it.
Some people are more talented.
Some people end up doing things they were born to do, others don't.
There are all kinds of Reasons why it never ends up the same because it can't.
Because there is not sameness.
There is not equality.
There's no such thing as indiscriminate fairness.
It just doesn't exist.
Just like two people being the same doesn't exist.
And you cannot make it happen outside of punishment.
You cannot enforce sameness without penalizing people.
You can't do it by rewarding people.
It doesn't, not by virtue of the left.
So here we have another piece.
The president in soap opera talks about income inequality right on schedule.
Here's an AP piece.
Guess what?
We now got even more rich people in this country.
What a problem.
We have even more evil.
It's not just the top 1%.
Now it's a top 20% that are evil and mean and selfish and stealing everything from the poor.
So it's now the top 20% that we have to target with higher taxes and higher punishment, not just the top 1%.
Now we gotta go get the top 20% because the success they're enjoying gives them too much power in politics and policy.
They have too much power to influence things in their favor because they've got all the money.
So we've got to go take it from them.
You go talk to somebody in a family four earning 100 to 250, and they will tell you it isn't wealthy.
It isn't rich, and they're all in debt.
And they're all living paycheck to paycheck.
I don't say that with any condemnation, praise or anything else.
I'm just giving you the facts.
But most people, do you realize, you know how many?
I read this the other day, and I said, this can't be.
And I looked it up, and it's pretty close.
What is the number of people in this country?
We got over 300 million.
What's the number of people, total number who file income tax returns with income over one million dollars?
What do you think?
Mr. Snurdley, no wrong answer here because you've just, it's I know it's a wild guess, but the guess that you give is an informed one.
You pretty studious on these matters.
What would you think the number based on what you read, what you think you know, the number of rich people you think are out there.
What is the number of Americans who file income tax returns every year with incomes north of 1 million dollars?
Well, no, it's more than that, but but it's uh it to me it's a shocking lien, it's 300,000 people.
Now, most people think there are that many in New York City alone, or there are that many in Hollywood alone.
You mean to tell me Russia, only three hundred thousand people that file tax returns with income north of a million.
Now, that's not 300,000 people with income north, it's 300,000 who file tax returns with adjusted gross income north of a million.
That's it's a it obviously a smaller number than the number of millionaires, but it's an astonishingly low number.
And look at how they're demonized.
And look at how they're targeted.
When the truth is everybody wishes they were one of them.
It's the most astounding thing.
It is just astounding.
And even so, those people are not the engine of the economy.
The middle class is the engine of the economy because there are tens and tens of million of them, and only 300,000 of people Who file tax returns north of a million dollars?
They're not the engine.
There just aren't enough of them.
And the Democrats are still targeting them.
Obama and the boys.
I must take a brief time now.
We'll be back with much more after this.
Here's a good example of uh a leftist talking about wealth.
It's Juan Williams.
Juan Williams was on the Fox News Sunday panel yesterday.
Chris Wallace said, we've been asking the viewers to send us questions to ask the panel.
And we have one that we want to put up on the screen.
This is from Skip Russo on Twitter, who asks, other than hope, what substantive argument do the supporters of the Affordable Care Act have that the law will work as intended.
And then Wallace says, Juan.
How would you answer old skip there?
I think the reason I think this is going to work is it doesn't disrupt the market for most people.
Nobody on this panel is going to have their health care affected, impacted by what's taking place.
What we have here is 70% have employer-provided insurance, and that stays in place right now.
Did you comprehend what you just heard there?
Can you make if a Republican had said that?
Well, the reason I think Obamacare is going to work is it doesn't disrupt the market for most people.
Nobody on this panel is going to have their health care affected by what's taking place.
Well, it's not going to be a problem for us.
What's going to go wrong?
It's going to work.
It's not going to disrupt the market for most people.
I know it's not true.
It's going to affect everybody.
And the people he says here, by the way, 70% have employer-provided insurance, that's right.
And starting next year, they start getting their cancellation notices.
Juan Williams is in the middle of a three-year, $2 million contract from Fox.
Remember, he got canned by NPR.
And...
And Fox, as a PR move, gave him a raise.
They signed him to an extension at a raise.
So Juan Williams is saying Obamacare will work because it won't affect people in the media.
That's who's on the panel.
It's not going to affect us here in the media.
And that's what they all think.
When you watch, I don't care.
Take your pick of any network reporter telling you about the latest horror story.
It's other people.
It isn't happening to them.
And that's why they don't care.
It isn't happening to them.
And they don't think it will happen to them, which means it really isn't big.
It's not real.
If it doesn't happen to them, it's not happening.
But more than that is their detachment from real people.
I mean, real people are being adversely affected by this.
Genuinely punished, losing their insurance, premiums doubling, deductibles tripling, cancellations.
Oh, that's not gonna be a problem.
Obamacare's gonna work.
It's not gonna affect 70% of the people on a panel here.
It's gonna be fine.
Bill Hammer just had his insurance plan canceled.
Bill Hemmer works at Fox.
He works in the morning.
He just had his plan canceled.
Oh, that can affect anybody in the media.
I mean, that this kind of insensitivity and I mean, I maybe go so far as to call it uh ignorance.
I mentioned are the Pope's thinking about having a clarification.
I've got the story some reason.com, and I've got to get to this, in addition to the healthcare news in the next hour.
But here is Eric in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Hi, Eric.
Thank you for waving.
Great to have you here.
Rush uh gazer didtoes to you.
Thank you, sir.
And I'd hate to have the left uh infringe on my right to gaze.
So I'm thinking actually there's a solution, and it's it's found right at the heart of conservatism.
Um, we we affirm morality and we affirm the Nuclear family.
And uh the morality, you know, prevents us from uh going too far with our gazing, and uh the family allows us to redirect that energy to something positive.
Um just thinking maybe the left will join us in uh affirming those two tenets of conservatism.
The left join us in conservatism.
Yeah, the nuclear family and uh sexual morality.
Are you kidding?
Those those two things scare the hell out of them.
The nuclear family and morality are as much that morality, especially, is one of the most anti uh motivating, mobilizing aspects of liberalism, and that is getting rid of it.
They don't want to be governed by morality, especially yours, Eric.
You just you're a self-admitted geezer.
You're here in the 50s, you believe in the nuclear fan.
I don't want any part of your morality.
And by the way, they're still gonna be able to gaze at women.
They're still gonna be able to Google them and ogle them and whatever they want to do.
Because they're better people.
They're not they're just for everybody else that they want to have this police action against.
Now that's what I call hopefulness, though.
That the left will join us in nuclear family reality.
It would be wonderful, but don't hold your breath, Eric.
Fastest three hours in media.
I can't, I really can't believe it.
Two of them are already in the camp, but they are.
▲
Export Selection