All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:49
December 16, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, and that's because the views expressed by the host on this program are the result of a daily relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
And then we find it.
And we do not run from it.
We shout it and we proclaim it.
And this causes people to lose their minds.
Happy to be with you, folks.
Happy to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushboat E by EIBNet.com.
Daily caller.
Americans want the government to stop acting like their mother.
Look, I want to.
I want to a little brief exception.
Mothers are not half as bad as the government.
But I nevertheless get the point here.
Americans are fed up with the government banning everything.
That's the impetus here of the poll.
It's a reason magazine roop, R-U-P-E poll.
Americans do not want the government to ban trans fats.
They don't want them to ban e-cigarettes.
They don't want them to ban online poker.
They don't want them to ban violent video games or genetic testing kits.
They don't want them to ban light bulbs.
According to this poll, and I happen to believe it, many Americans are becoming frustrated with the government's growing involvement in what they believe should be their personal decisions.
For one thing, they do not want the government to be their personal nutritionist.
The poll found that 71% of Americans oppose the FDA's proposed ban on trans fats, for example.
Now, my guess isn't most people don't know what a trans fat is, but they do know that they want the government involved in it.
A large majority, 76%, said the government should not be able to prohibit the sale of beverages with large amounts of caffeine.
They don't like the idea of banning something larger than 16 ounces.
They just don't like it.
It's like I said in the in the previous hour, we've had a couple of callers recently that have buttressed this point.
I think that there is a groundswell of opposition to big government taking place all over the country.
It's not reported on, it's not reflected, it's not in the daily media narrative.
Of course, it never would be.
It's not part of the daily soap opera.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
If you pay attention to media, all you're going to learn is that people want to be helpless.
They are helpless, and they're totally content with the government providing for them, giving them things, protecting them, taking care of them.
And of course, the people who are enriched and empowered by doing this are also going to be supportive of it, but there's a groundswell of opposition to this.
The problem is that it isn't represented by anybody officially.
That remains the problem.
We've got this newfangled budget here that has just passed, the House of Representatives.
What's going to happen to this in the Senate?
By the way, I just want to remind you, on January 1st, I still don't believe this.
And I really, I can't tell you how frustrated I am that Republican Party made this happen.
George W. Bush signed this law in 2007 that bans the incandescent light bulb based on a hoax.
The incandescent light bulb is causing global warming.
As the ice sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions expand.
There isn't any warming going on anywhere.
Quite the opposite is the truth.
Record cold is being set in places all over the world.
Snow for the first time in a hundred years In Cairo.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that Gore was scheduled to speak that day on global warming.
It's what usually happens.
Incandescent light bulbs cause global warming.
40 and 60 watt bulbs.
January 1st, you're going to be illegal.
You're going to be in violation of the law if you if you buy them.
It's just unbelievable.
And their replacement, these silly compact fluorescents, are dangerous.
They got mercury in them.
They're not nearly as good.
And Republicans made this happen.
They acquiesced.
I mentioned earlier the Washington Times had an editorial, unsigned editorial.
The GOP retreats into fear.
Last week I speculated numerous times because I'm asked constantly.
Rush, what's wrong with the Republicans?
And I've told you that I think they're suffering from shock, post traumatic stress disorder, government shutdown, they're just scared.
They're frightened of the media.
Had people call here, they're not rushed, they're not frightened, they're not scared anything.
They agree with it.
They're all in on it.
And I know there's a body of thought that agrees with that, and it's it's hard to refute.
You look at this budget deal that Paul Ryan came up with that comes out of a Republican Congress, it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't jibe with any of the thinking of the base of the Republican Party, it establishes funding for Obamacare.
Jeff Sessions pointed out, he was on Levin's show on Friday, I think.
Jeff Sessions pointed out that the uh the budget has a mechanism in it to make tax increases easier than ever in the Senate with what just 51 votes.
Republicans doing this.
This is a Republican budget.
And so when people call here and say to me, Rush, they're not scared.
They're all in.
I can understand the sediment.
Let me share with you this uh Washington Times editorial.
With frightened Republicans scattering like bunny rabbits at the sound of distant thunder, a job killing minimum wage increase is probably inevitable.
Only 63 House Republicans voted to maintain the budgetary discipline that prevented Obama from breaking the budget into even tinier pieces.
The early unconditional surrender in the House sends a message that these congressmen will throw good policy overboard at the first sign their reelection could be imperiled.
The Republican cynicism stands proud and naked.
It's enough to make a speaker cry.
With a bully pulpit backed up by friends in the media, the president owns the agenda in Washington.
If he can fool Republicans into voting for a tax and spending increase in return for gossamer spending reductions to take place someday, maybe in a future decade when many of the Congressmen voting for it will be dead anyway.
There's no limit to what he can do.
Taking his case to Twitter, Mr. Obama said, here's how, listen to this now.
This is so convoluted, it defies all economic theory, common sense, and logic.
But this is what Obama said.
Here's how to improve our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise the minimum wage.
Folks, we have decades of data, metadata, big data, regular data, infinitesimal data.
We've got decades of data.
Raising a minimum wage does not raise the job level.
It does not increase the number of jobs.
Raising the minimum wage does not raise the standard of living.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't have one significant economic benefit.
And yet, here's Obama.
Here's how to improve our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise the minimum wage.
And then he said, a $2.85 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage would create $32.6 billion in new wealth and 140,000 new jobs.
Okay.
If mandating salary increases is what it takes to create wealth, then why not raise the minimum wage to $28.50 and create 1,400,000 new jobs.
The minimum wage and arbitrary salary increase creates wealth.
Ladies and gentlemen, the government cannot and does not create wealth.
Government destroys wealth by taking it and moving it around by redistributing it.
Government doesn't create wealth.
Where's the money going to come from to raise the minimum wage, for example?
Where is the corresponding increase in productivity that generates that money?
There isn't any.
Why does somebody say that an entry-level job is worth what Obama wants it to be?
Where's the economics behind it?
There isn't any.
There's just a cockamamie faculty lounge theory here that is not borne out by any data, any logic, or any logic.
or any economic sense.
It's like my old suggestion of how to argue with somebody who supports a minimum wage.
They'll say to you, well, we need to raise it.
Russia $2 an hour.
Okay, fine.
What's that make it?
Well, let's see, $2 an hour.
Let's just let's just say it'll round it off.
Let's say it makes it $10 an hour.
Okay, well, why not make it $12 an hour?
Whoa, okay, you go for that.
Sure, sure.
Okay, wait, $12,000.
Well, let's make them $15 an hour.
Whoa, Rush, what's happening to you?
You're you'd support $15?
Absolutely.
What about you?
Well, I'm all in.
I said, fine.
Well, let's make it $20.
Really, Rush?
You'd support a minimum wage at $20 an hour?
Why not?
Why stop?
Okay, $20, that's great.
Boy, we're really creating all the okay.
Let's get serious here.
Let's make it $40 an hour.
Well, I don't know, Rush.
Why?
Why not?
What's wrong with $40 an hour?
Well, at some point, even advocates will realize, wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense.
And at that point, you've got them.
And you say it doesn't make any sense at any level because it's artificial.
It's unreal.
It's not related to anything.
There's no corresponding to productivity that generates that money.
Raise the minimum wage from who?
Who's got it?
Well, everybody knows, Mr. Limbaugh, those businesses are just hoarding money in the bank or in the back room.
They've got money.
They're just the owner, he's just keeping it for himself.
It's time he shared it with his workers who who were making him.
He wouldn't be where he is.
Well, it's workers.
He ought to give the money to his workers.
They're the ones responsible for the owner being where he is.
Oh, okay.
So the owner just has a stash back there, right?
And he's hoarding it, and it's unfair.
And so you you want the government to go in there with their jackboot of thugs and dip into the safe or the or the box or the strong book, wherever this owner's hoarding his money and has taken enough out to give his workers an additional $2 minimum wage increase.
That's exactly right.
I said, Well, first place, the owner doesn't have the money.
In the second place, that's not how economics works.
There has to be something behind the increase.
There's got to be some level of productivity generating the money.
The money just doesn't come out of thin air.
Then you get right down to it again, the same old thing.
The minimum wage is not about economics or standard of living or anything.
It's just a leftist prop.
But the point is, here you've got Obama out claiming, and Pelosi too, claiming that raising the minimum wage or unemployment benefits equal economic growth.
It's just as nonsensical as them believing the stimulus was going to stimulate the economy.
It was impossible for it to.
There was no economic way to stimulate the economy by simply shifting the money around.
If you're going to pump, if the federal government, you're going to pump a trillion dollars into the economy, where do you get it?
You get it from the very economy you're gonna put it back into.
It's a net wash.
We're gonna stimulate the economy.
Roads and bridges and clean air, clean water, and doctors and there's a rebuild school.
Okay, girl, that sounds wonderful.
We're gonna get the money.
The government.
Oh, so the government's just gonna put a trillion dollars in there.
It's not in there right now.
That's right.
Well, where is that trillion dollars?
Well, we don't really have it.
That's right.
You don't really have it.
We don't have a trillion dollars sitting around that door.
We're in debt 17 trillion dollars minimum.
But yet we're gonna find a trillion dollars that's not being used.
A trillion dollars that's just sitting idle somewhere, and we're gonna now if you could do that, if you could find 17 trillion dollars or one trillion dollars that's sitting idle and not doing, and then you pump that in, then maybe for a short time you could artificially stimulate the economy.
But if you're just gonna first take a trillion dollars out of the economy when nobody's looking, and then put it back in and claim you're stimulating, you're doing nothing but replacing what you took in the first place.
There is no it's the same thing with the minimum wage.
It isn't new money.
It's being taken from somebody.
Now, why can't the Republicans stand up and say this?
Are they afraid to?
Do they not believe it?
They don't want to cause trouble.
They're afraid it would lead to a government shutdown, whatever.
The Washington Times thinks that they're retreating into fear.
They think they're just scared straight.
They stiff.
They're afraid to stand up for anything they believe in.
Because they're gonna get criticized because it might lead to uh government shutdown or what have you.
But look, before we go to the break, here's another story that indicates to me there's all kinds of Tea Party effervescence going on out there that the inside the beltway crowd, both parties is missing and is unaware that it's had and the signs are everywhere.
Colorado, these two uh Democrats that that were the were recalled because of their anti-gun legislation.
By the way, the latest scroll shooting and collar, it's another kid, admittedly inspired by socialists.
Inspired by what he's heard about the inequities of our society, and upset about it and deciding to pick up a gun and do something about it.
The media doesn't want you to know this, but practically every one of these young kids shooting up schools is inspired by something to do with leftism, socialism, what have you.
Every one of them is.
When they can't tie them to the Tea Party, you don't hear about it anymore.
You hear the mental health explanation.
Well, what mental health problem?
Liberalism, Garrandam teed is what's causing this.
But that's another subject.
Hundreds turn out to support the cake shop owner who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
I have details coming up.
Don't go away.
How are you?
Rushlin bought the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Let me grab a phone call.
I just realized I haven't gone to the phones yet.
I got that to do, and I've got this health care stack that I've got to start making a dent in.
It's just give you Robert or Mike Michael Boskin, a well-known economist of great repute.
Obamacare's troubles are only beginning, and he details why.
And that is so right on.
Anyway, we'll start Seattle with Dan.
Dan, glad you called.
Great to have you in the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush.
Merry, Merry Christmas.
Same to you, sir.
Thank you.
Uh, the Catholic Church is caught between a dilemma between socialism and conservatism.
Uh socialism is the redistribution redistribution.
I can't say it.
Redistribution.
Of the wealth of those who take.
And then they redistribute it to uh places, supposedly poor nations where those people need it.
And As far as uh uh the Catholic Church is the conservative uh portion of it is it's uh it's a uh a rule book.
The Bible is a conservative rule book.
And name one liberal that ever wants to follow the rules.
Let me tell you what happened to Catholic Church.
Uh and it's not just me opining here.
This has been it's the opinion of several learned historians.
You can take it back actually to the to the New Deal.
Once the Catholic Church was able to equate big government income redistribution with charity, it became an automatic support.
Because the church, any church, all churches, are in large part about charity, about helping the underprivileged, the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the thirsty, you name it.
And here comes this massive scheme called redistribution, new deal, socialism, whatever you want to call it.
And the church just glommed onto it, as Muhammad Ali said, like white on rice, it was a no-brainer.
And when the church did that, the church glomming onto it, then added to the the whole idea that it was a charitable thing rather than theft.
And redistribution is theft.
It is a powerful government taking from people they deem to have too much or more than they need, and then just giving it to people they deem worthy of receiving it.
And there's always a deal at the end.
If you'll vote for me, I'll keep giving you this stuff.
But once it became seen as charity and not theft, the Catholic Church is all in.
Mr. Snerdley, pop quiz.
What was the last year?
What was the last year that Americans were able to keep every dollar they earned?
You're a first instance.
You were at 13, you're right.
Up until 1913, everybody, the robber barons, poor everybody, kept 100% of what they earned.
Here we go.
Well, there were temporary levies, maybe the rich civil war, but in terms of no income tax.
What made us explode into an industrial giant?
Well, here's my point, though.
My my point is 1930, we're talking about redistribution of wealth and charity and all that, Catholic Church.
Any church.
You know, they because the guy had a good point.
I mean, if if you there's there's nothing liberal about pro-life, nothing liberal about anti-gay marriage.
If you look at morality, the morality of the Bible, the morality of the old and new testament, there's nothing leftist about it.
The closest the leftists can come to claiming Christianity is socialism, is to misinterpret and misimply the words, deeds of Jesus.
But everywhere else, the morality of the Bible does not ever come in contact with the belief system of the left.
Okay.
And yet, all these churches are socialists.
The bishops, the Monsignors, the Popes, they've all been, well, not all of them, but it the Episcopalians, the Methodists, my church, they're worse than ever.
And why?
Because they were able to get away with saying that the redistribution of wealth, socialism was charity.
That the only reason government was taking money was to give to the disadvantaged.
It's charity.
You had to support it, and it it gave you cover.
But the fact of the matter is, I find this fascinating.
And I it's it it's it to put it in a you anybody can sit and say, you know, we didn't have any income tax until 1913.
Oh, okay, so what?
This is 2013.
1913 is a long time ago.
It's a different world.
Right.
But back in 1911, 1912, 1910, you picked a year.
With nobody paying any income tax, we had a public school system.
We had roads.
We had bridges.
We had an army.
We had a navy, and they were winning wars.
We uh what else we have?
We had uh we had we had we had colleges.
We had public school system, we had colleges, we had uh we had doctors and and and health care, we have all kinds of stuff.
How how how was that possible?
How do we have all that without the government providing it?
Well, that's my but people earned it, that's right.
And things were priced according to their ability to pay for them or afford them.
And Mr Limbaugh, are you theoriously arguing for the elimination of the income?
No, no.
I mean, I'd I'd celebrate it if it happened, and I'd be the first one to sign it, but I'm also a realist.
Uh but the income tax doesn't come close now to funding the government's level of spending.
I mean, the indebtedness that we're piling up here.
So no, we didn't have political correctness.
Uh and you know what else?
We didn't have gyms and we didn't have we didn't have sneakers and workouts and all that stuff.
And back in those days, a portly man was the sign of success and dominance and power.
I envy those days.
Uh just kidding, of course.
No, I just think it's fascinating.
That we had all of the infrastructure and we had a decent education system without an income tax.
Could we do it again?
Yeah, probably, but it never will happen.
On Friday, Lakewood, Colorado, hundreds of supporters flooded the small masterpiece cake shop in Lakewood in support of the store's owner, Jack Phillips.
Phillips made national news last year when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, claiming that it violated his religious beliefs.
The couple, the same-sex couple sued him.
The ACLU filed a complaint on their behalf last week.
Administrative law judge Robert Spencer made a ruling on the case.
Judge said that Phillips would have to sell gay couples' wedding cakes or risk facing penalties and fines in jail.
On Friday, the cake shop owners' supporters fired back by supporting supporting his business and making donations.
Most of the supporters were first-time customers.
They pull quote.
I've never been here before.
I came today because of this cause.
This guy's got rights.
He has freedoms.
He's allowed to do what he wants to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people, said Rich Wyatt.
America's in a difficult position right now, and we're losing rights every day.
We can't afford to lose.
He said, I'm proud to see Americans coming out today supporting this guy's rights to make a cake for whoever he wants to make a cake or not.
Okay, so this guy's minding his own business.
He bakes cakes.
A gay couple come in, they order a cake, he says, sorry, I don't believe in what you're doing.
I'm not making a cake.
Okay, so go someplace that doesn't have a problem, get your cake.
No, no, no, no.
We are going to force everybody to accept, agree, bow down, acquiesce, whatever.
And we're going to use the full force of government and the courts and the laws.
This is my point.
Whatever they are threatened by, they've got to eliminate.
But they're not going to be able to, folks.
They might be able to attack symbols.
And they might score direct hit now and then, but they're not going to erase your faith.
They're not going to stamp out your beliefs.
They are not going to eliminate your moral code or anything.
They're not going to eliminate your belief in Christmas or whatever it is they're trying to stamp out.
And it's ditto for the Tea Party.
I'm fully aware.
I I think I actually think we're in the midst of a backlash now that's being unreported on and uncommented on and unchronicled.
Little things like this.
The guy, his little cake shop, people showing up to support him because they hear about what happened.
Just little things like this are indication enough to me.
But again, these people are absent political leadership representing them.
That does remain a problem.
Who's next?
Bob in Tallahassee, Florida.
Hello, sir.
Glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Greetings, sir, and Merry Christmas to you.
Same to you, sir.
Thanks much.
All right.
A week, two weeks ago, you were talking about the Pope and he him commenting about trickle down and things like that.
Well, for example, charities.
They receive money from people who donate.
An example, very good example of uh businesses and charities.
Newman's own, Paul Newman.
That's a uh, you know, salad dressing, popcorn, whatever.
Right.
And Paul Newman set that up so that after expenses, the profits went to charity.
And one of the biggest recipients was the Catholic Church.
Now there are others that do receive from that organization, but the Catholic Church was one of the biggest ones.
And for example, you know, it's just a very good uh illustration of what you were talking about in regards to capitalism, trickle down.
Yeah, see, that's the thing.
The uh I I uh it in the Pope's in the reporting in Reuters of the Papal Dec was a verbatim critique or criticism of trickle down and an assertion that it doesn't work,
and it just I really I was I was flummoxed totally by it because all of economics is trickled trickled down, and and for the There's only a finite amount of money in the system, period, to take away from some to give away to others.
Or to have it genuinely change hands.
Exactly.
And and another another aspect to consider that is bad economies.
When they do have bad economies, what is one of the things that you might hear about within the you know the media?
It's how charities are receiving less.
Why is that?
Because people have less money to give away.
Right.
You know, and like I said, you know, there's only a finite amount of money.
Yeah, but see, then you're not you're you're hitting another red flag because the American people are the most charitable in the world.
And the target of whatever the papal document was was this country.
We are the leading capitalist country in the world, and we are the we're the country with the largest dollar amount of charitable donation every year, disaster relief.
I mean, it's it's it's not even close.
United States leads the world in acts of goodwill and charity, economic and otherwise.
And to see it under attack, I just I I couldn't believe it.
I literally couldn't believe it.
And then the trickle down to be I mean, the left rips into trickle.
Again, what here's here's what the left wants you to think trickle down is.
They have totally bastardized the definition of trickle-down economics.
What they want you to believe is that trickle down starts with massive tax cuts for the rich.
So we are going to let the rich keep much more of what they earn than they should, because that money will eventually trickle down to the poor and the middle class because the rich will donate it Or give it away, or they set up something impossible as a definition of trickle down.
Trickle down has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.
Trickle down is what happens when there is commerce.
There's trickle up, there's trickle down, it has nothing to do with conservatism.
It has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.
Trickle down is simply commerce, and it's undeniably true.
It happens.
The Catholic Church benefits from it.
Everybody does.
Every financial, economic transaction is trickled down from somewhere to somewhere.
In some cases it might be trickle up.
But a job is trickle down.
Buying a product is trickle down.
It's all trickle down.
This is simply common sense.
The left has tried to change the definition of trickle down, much as they've tried to revise the history of the ec economics and the policies of the 1980s.
Because they were so successful.
They had to be rewritten.
They had to be tarnished and trashed, because it was profoundly good.
And it wasn't liberal.
And it wasn't made popular by socialists and leftists and Democrats.
It was the exact opposite of what they believe.
And it worked so well that it had to be tarnished and trashed.
And the way they did it was to was to impugn and make trickle down a dirty word.
And the key to it, tax cuts for the rich.
That's all you have to know about what the left thinks trickle down is.
Theory that they they want you to think that what we believe is let the rich keep all the money and we'll all benefit.
That's not what trickle-down is.
And then when the rich do not give their money away, then the left comes around and says, See, trickle-down doesn't work.
Thank you.
Bill Gates had got 40 billion dollars.
He didn't give it away.
except he is.
But he's not going out on the street corner and giving a million here and a million there.
He's not making a million there.
Except that he is.
That they work at Microsoft.
They're just a bunch of frauds, folks.
And and to see this kind of gobbledygook coming from the highest reaches of the Catholic Church.
I it was unbelievable.
I must, I'm I'm I'm rehashing old ground, but it may be worth it because there's so many new people tuning into this program each and every day.
It helps to keep things in context.
And I still have this Obamacare stack.
And I'm telling you, I'm going to get to this.
I'm not toying with you or teasing you.
I'm I'm gonna get to it.
It's just that once I start, there's no end to it.
One story just leads to the next, and it's bad.
It is rotten.
It's bad out there.
And it's troubling because the Republican budget pretty much pays for funds that it just it's it's it's mind boggling.
But I must now take our own trickle down timeout.
And we'll be back.
Glenshaw, Pennsylvania.
We head back to the phones.
This is Julia.
Hi, Julia, great to have you.
Hello.
Oh, hi.
Hi.
Oh, wait, Julia, are you eleven?
Yeah.
Mr. Snerdley told me I forgot to acknowledge we have someone eleven years old on the on the program.
It's Julia from Glenshaw, Pennsylvania.
So we're on the air now, Julia.
So how are you?
Good.
How are you?
Well, I'm really good.
I'm really I'm I'm very happy to talk to you.
I'm happy to talk to you too.
I know.
That's that's thank you.
That's it's so cool.
What's what's uh what's going on?
Well, I was calling you about my holiday chorus concert, and how there was lessons on Kwanzaa Hanukkah and La Fiesta La Fosada, but not Christmas, because all it was for Christmas was two or three kids walking across the stage, and one kid asked the other, what do you think whenever you hear the word Christmas?
And he said, Santa, snow, snowmen, candles and presents.
And nothing about Jesus or religion.
Really?
And yet your chorus perform music from the other cultures that celebrate Christ.
Were those religious?
Did you have to delve into the religious aspects of the others like Kwanzaa or whatever the others were, Hanukkah?
Yeah, we talked about um like what the like ten can uh ten candles or seven candles meant, each one of them.
And but Christianity was simply Santa Claus presents, uh snow and candles.
Yes.
Well, let me a Julia, did it make you believe less in Jesus?
No, I just thought it was a little wrong.
I have nothing against the other like religions, but it's just that they didn't say anything about our religion.
See, this is the point.
She's got no problem with any of the others, but they have a problem with hers.
And so they have to take in a school this 11-year-old and try to corrupt her belief, but that's not gonna work.
They're not gonna be able to take Christmas out of your heart, Julia, no matter how hard they try, or your mom or dad, or any of that.
That's a great learning lesson for you.
She sounds totally flummous by I gotta take a break on way more.
Julia, thanks for the call.
Very much.
Okay, folks, healthcare stat coming up, where, depending on where you live, they might just be debiting your bank account already.
It's to take money away from you.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection