All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
August 27, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you here.
I am America's real anchor man.
Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all sensing, all feeling.
All everything.
Maha Rushy.
I am also known as America's truth detector and a doctor of democracy.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address.
Lrushmore at EIB net.com.
I got a bunch of emails during the uh top of the hour break about the point that I made that I haven't seen any Republican Party messaging.
I mean official party messaging.
This is what we stand for.
This is who we are.
This is how things are going to change if you vote for us.
This is what we're going to stop.
This is what we're going to do.
We believe in lower taxes.
We believe in securing the whatever it is.
I don't see any of that.
And I want to eat a bunch of emails of people.
Hey, Rush, that's right, but I don't see any from the Democrats either.
And I said, wait a second.
And I paused mentally.
And I pondered that.
And there may be some truth to that.
I know what the Democrats do.
They're doing it.
I know what they're going to do if they keep winning because they're doing it.
And the Democrats telegraph who they are every day, ideologically.
Now that may not packaging or may not be packaging it officially in campaign ads and this kind of thing.
And maybe my superior knowledge and understanding of these people just makes me think that they do package themselves because I know them so well.
But I had to stop to think about it, and they're not doing so either, really.
Other than the fact they're in power and governing and are implementing what they believe.
I mean, that's that's a hard-cold reality that for some of us impossible to miss.
But for the low information crowd out there is clueless.
Now the Democrats, the Democrat Party is a disease.
The Democrat Party is poison.
The Democrat Party could not win if they were up front about what they intend to do.
But they never are.
Snerdly, what I'm talking about, the Democrats in uh in an Obama campaign, look up there, they were going to lower the sea levels, the earth is gonna heal, uh, we're gonna take care of women because the Republicans are engaged in a war against them.
They they do get specific with that.
They don't get specific and honest about their agenda, but they they present one.
And the the Republicans aren't.
And to me, you know me, it's to me, I I think it's a win-win.
I happen to believe that more Americans live their lives as traditional Americans always have, in a conservative sense, uh, and not just political, but culturally, morally.
I think I think it's why the country's still got a chance.
But they need to be supported.
People need to know that they're in the majority in the way they think.
Right now, too many people in the majority of thinking think that they're a dwindling minority.
And I would think the Republican Party would want to do something about that.
But then the Republican Party, when it comes to, let's say, one issue, amnesty.
They're all for it, just like the Democrats are so and they've they've caught some hell by being public about that.
More and more what's happening is that all of these consultants and and uh the people that run the packs and raise money and put together the TV ads, they seem to be the ones who are defining what a party is for and what it stands for, and that can change from candidate to candidate.
Now, about this expectations business.
This is this is kind of in the weeds, but I'm gonna I'm gonna mention it because there's two things here.
First up, from yesterday is a story from the Pew Research Center, and the headline is Republicans open up wider expectations gap ahead of the midterms.
And it's a it's a survey based on Republicans will be more optimistic that 2014 will be better for them.
So it's it's really a survey of optimism and attitudes and expectations.
And with just over two months before the midterm, now I know this sounds kind of uh esoteric, but stick with me on this for just a second.
With just over two months before the midterm elections, Republican voters are widening the expectation gap with the Democrats about six in ten, sixty-one percent of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters think that their party will do better than in recent elections, and that's roughly double the share of Democrats who feel similarly about their party's chances.
So to boil this down, 61% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters think they are going clean up.
Only 32% of Democrats think they're going to clean up.
Now the gap has not reached the same levels of the GOP's margin before their large 2010 gains or the Democrats' expectations in their 2006 sweep.
But it's close.
The Republican expectations gap is very close to what it was in the 2010 midterms.
This could be why there isn't any polling.
Although, you know there's two groups of pollers, uh pollsters, you would you would have Republican pollsters who'd be polling for their candidates, and they probably are, but not releasing any results.
And then you'd have the national pollsters, the ABC Washington Post, the CBS New York Times, uh, NBC Wall Street Journal, they're not releasing any polling results.
And we can only conclude from that there aren't any that are favorable to the Democrats or Obama's, so they're not going to go there.
In absent any polling data, there's not any discussion about a wave election.
Because the media has become so dependent on polls.
It really to me is uh, well, in polite terms, I'd say it's a shame.
In street lingo, it's outrageous.
It's just it's it's absurd the degree to which polls have now become ways of making news and shaping public opinion rather than the false reporting that accompanies them, which is this is a reflection of public opinion.
That's not why people do polls anymore.
Well, they do the internal people poll to find out what's going on, but the the the drive-by polls are really meant to shape public opinion.
And if you have a set of polls that show, for example, a huge Republican wave election, there's no way you're going to release them.
And if you think that's what your poll's going to show, there's no way you would even take it.
So you won't even be accused of hiding your results.
You don't even have any.
So then we come back to expectations.
Okay, why does that matter?
What the hell is this?
Well, let's go to Chris Siliza at the Washington Post today.
He writes the following.
Republicans think they are headed to a big victory this fall.
Does that matter?
Yes, Republicans are much more convinced that they are headed for a win on November 4th than are the Democrats.
And I think he's bouncing off this Pew survey.
But he writes, Republicans were also convinced they were going to beat uh Obama in 2012, and that didn't work out so well.
So, do expectations, high expectations or not, matter?
And the bottom line answer is they can, especially in a midterm election, thinking you can or will win can help the turnout, especially in midterms, which are very dependent on turnout.
So the point that Siliz is making is that this expectation gap could very well manifest itself in a huge Republican turnout advantage.
Republicans expect they're gonna win big because they assume everybody's gonna be out voting against what's going on.
So that's why this expectations gap is even relevant today, because it's all part of the context here that we're exploring, why there aren't any polls, and why, therefore, there is no discussion of a wave election that might manifest itself for the Republicans.
And then we're back to the same old thing.
Why aren't the Republicans contrasting themselves with the status quo, not against the theory of what will happen if the Democrats win.
The Republicans can say, look what did happen, look what has happened, and we're going to stop it.
But they're not saying it.
And there's this, I know what it is.
The consultants and others have convinced elected Republicans that anything like that is going to be construed by voters as partisan.
And voters don't want partisan.
Oh, no, no, no.
Voters want the politicians to get along, don't you know?
Voters want them to work together.
The voters are tired of politics, don't you know?
The voters are tired of partisanship.
The voters are really, really tired of all the arguing and the bickering.
And the voters want people to don't tell anybody that you disagree with Obama.
Don't tell anybody you disagree with the Democrats.
No, no, no.
Because that's just going to scare the moderates and the independents and they're going to vote Democrat.
And in this way, I think consultants and handlers and all these pack people can end up paralyzing a party.
I don't like this assumptions game.
I have to tell you, I don't like this expectations game.
This expectations game can backfire on you.
For example, if you are relying on this expectations gap for big turnout, well, what if so many of your voters expect to win big, they decide they don't have to go vote.
Because since everybody's going to be voting, you know what?
I don't have to worry about it.
It I think it can work to suppress turnout.
Now, what about the old saw that we always hear when the election season actually begins from candidates and parties alike that you have to give people reason to vote for you.
Because if you don't, you're not going to have a mandate after you win.
If all you do is win as the opposition, well, you can you can conclude that the voters want you to do the opposite of what's going on.
But that may not be the case.
The Republicans found that out not long after 1994.
If we want to be honest with ourselves.
Back in 1994, the Republicans, Mr. Newt and the gang, made the mistake of assuming that this massive win of the House for the first time in 40 years meant that there had been a transformation within the country, within the population of liberal to conservative.
And the assumption was then that everybody voted, voted because of the contract with America, and knew exactly what the Republicans were going to do and fully supported it.
And it turned out that wasn't the case.
There was just genuine anger and people were fed up with the corruption and all the other things going on in the Democrat Party.
There was the House bank scandal in the post office.
And plus there was a lot of anti-Clinton sentiment at the time in the 1992, 93, 94 campaign.
midterms.
And so the Republicans stopped teaching.
They stopped explaining why they were doing what they were doing.
And they were set up, the Democrats and the media immediately just laid into them as typical conservative, racist, sexist, bigots, and then we got wasn't very long after that, Republicans wanted to starve kids by cutting and eliminating the school lunch program.
And the Republicans didn't know what hit them.
Because they're sitting there thinking the country has shifted and moved in their favor.
So this business of not offering, not explaining what you stand for, and not giving yourself a mandate.
Now, I know there's no mandate per se here because there's no national election taking place.
There's no presidential election.
That's where mandates come from.
I I understand all that.
I just see my where I'm coming from, I think, especially right now, six years into this mess, I think a very artful, honest, heartfelt explanation of who we are and what we believe and what we want to do would result in its own landslide.
Now I understand that any time this is tried, the media is gonna launch and call conservatives liars and point up I I know it's a it's a battlefield out there.
And it's clear that the decision has been made not to hit the battlefield.
We're gonna let the PACs take the field, and we're gonna let the consultants take the field, and we're gonna let individual House and Senate candidates define who we're not gonna take the field.
And I don't know, I just think it's a missed opportunity.
But I happen to believe in what we stand for, folks.
That's why I'm not afraid of it.
Okay, gotta take a brief time out.
When we come back, I have a question.
Should ESPN suspend itself for at least two days.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
I got a delay my ESPN question for just one more segment.
Should they suspend themselves?
And there's also, do you believe Billy Crystal is a racist and Robin Williams is a racist and Sovi Vergara is a is it is it if feminazis are mad at her?
This is so great.
The media stacked today, I can't wait to delve into it.
But there's other things too.
Now, let me give you some interesting stats.
You know, there's an election in Florida yesterday.
You aware of that?
Did you vote?
There was a primary.
And Charlie Christ trying to re-emerge up against Governor Rick Scott.
Well, wait till you hear these numbers.
Are you ready?
In the primary here in Florida yesterday, Governor Scott, Republican, got 217,000 more votes than Charlie Christ.
And are you ready?
Overall, 127,000 more Republicans voted Tuesday than Democrats.
Even though Democrats outnumber the Republicans in registration by 455,000.
So there are 455,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Florida.
Rick Scott gets 217,000 more votes than a former uh uh did he was he ever governor Yeah, attorney, yeah, yeah, that's right, Governor Attorney General Christ, the George Hamilton tan guy.
And uh the point is that there was huge Republican turnout, exactly what the expert thinking is stay away, don't say don't do anything, just let people vote.
A hundred and twenty-seven thousand more Republicans voted than Democrats.
But I know that's the other side of it.
Rick Scott has not been on the sideline.
Rick Scott has been working the state.
He has been campaigning and he has been explaining what he's gonna do.
He's got a track record, there's no question, you've got a good record.
But the but still the the numbers here on turnout go to that story from Pugh on the expectations gap.
Okay.
Speaking of Florida, here's Dylan, who is calling from Lakeland.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing, Russ?
Good.
Thank you.
Uh yeah, I got a theory on why maybe the Republicans aren't saying much.
Um, I think that a lot of the arguments, especially for my age group and for low information borders, I'm 25, by the way, um, is is that uh let's just, for example, the tax.
We say lower taxes, and I agree with that.
But whenever I say that to any of my friends, oh yeah, well, lower taxes for the rich, they they just don't understand that you know, lower taxes would mean that people have more to spend, people have more to invest, people more jobs.
I think I think that argument seems to work out for the Democrats just because of the low information voters.
I I don't think there's any question about that.
It's a I think if I understand you're right, I mean you're basically saying these low information people are ignorant, and the low tax argument, they think, because they've bought everything the media says that whenever there's talk of tax cuts, it only means for the rich, right?
Absolutely.
That's what your buddies think.
Yes.
It doesn't help that they don't have jobs themselves.
Or very low-paying jobs.
Take a look at this Burger King thing.
Take a look at this Burger King Warren Buffett thing.
Warren Buffett is investing in Burger King, and they're merging with a with a uh fast food joint in Canada, and they're gonna have their their federal tax rate cut in half.
And Warren Buffett, it's a mate, Warren Buffett promoted Obama.
Warren Buffett made the case for tax increases on the rich to help Obama.
Now, Warren Buffett, when it's him involved, does everything he can to pay as little in tax as possible.
Now look what's happened.
Burger King has made a smart business decision.
And how many low information voters do you think have bought the notion that Burger King is unpatriotic and not willing to pay their fair share of the rich and are trying to escape taxes, just like proving this guy's point.
I know it's a very, very frustrating thing.
There's a way around it, though.
But that's what I mean.
You gotta have people that can explain this.
Half my brain time behind my back, folks, just to make it fair.
Ill Rushbow executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
This last call, I'm I I I've gotta I gotta push the ESPN suspension.
Just hang with me, folks.
I I promise I'm gonna get I can't wait to get to this media.
I'm not teasing you.
It's just this is important too.
This last call that we had from Dylan in Lakeland, Florida, that what he said to me proves the need for a clear and convincing presentation of our position on taxes for people.
He made it clear that his friends, 25 years old, low information people, they hear tax cuts and they just assume when they hear the Republicans talk about tax cuts, they don't think it's for them.
They think the Republicans only care about the one percent.
They're rich.
And they are low information.
They have to be excused.
That's all they hear.
And if the Republicans aren't going to go out and correct that and explain it, if they're gonna leave it to people like me and bloggers and others, that's not that's not the I don't think the smartest way to go.
I mean, I'm glad to do it, but I'm not them.
And it's a it's a fact that Republicans have been impugned for years, decades on a whole bunch of issues like taxes.
But the real hypocrisy is to be found on the Democrat side.
What have I always told you about Warren Buffett and Bill Gates?
The two richest men in America, and the left and the low information crowd love both of them.
Whenever there is any animus in any discussion about the evil rich, be it tax cuts or whatever, nobody is ever mad at Warren Buffett, and nobody's ever mad at Bill Gates.
And do you know why?
Because those two guys have figured out that the way to keep the barbarians from their fortunes is to sound just like them.
And so Bill Gates and Warren Buffett at every turn tell everybody the rich aren't paying enough in taxes.
They don't live their lives that way, but publicly for public consumption by low information voters and others.
Why, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, listen to these guys, they think that their fortunes when they die should be given to the government or to charity.
They're not gonna give it to their rich, worthless kids.
Low information people approve of that.
They hear Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, specifically Buffett, he's on the Obama campaign trail, speaking for tax increases.
The Kennedys did the same thing.
One of the wealthiest families in the country at the time.
And what were they for?
Raising taxes on every damn person they can find.
And what did that accomplish?
It kept the people, the barbarians with the pitchforks away from their houses.
In fact, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are loved because these low information people think they're looking out for them.
But let's look at Buffett.
And I like Warren Buffett.
He's a funny guy.
It's just, you know, it's a shame that Warren Buffett will not...
Use the examples of his life as a teaching mechanism and actually educate people so they could learn from him.
The same thing with Gates.
That these guys have made this calculated decision to sign on with the Democrats publicly anyway, because of buzz and PR, and it keeps people from demanding a share of their money and all that.
But when you get behind closed doors, and we look at how these guys actually manage their money, there is no way they're paying any more in taxes than they have to.
And there is no way that they are trying to figure out how to.
They're doing everything they can to pay as little in taxes as they can.
But the low information crowd doesn't know that.
And if the low information crowd ever found out, why then the deal would be off.
Now there's a there's a post at redstate.com by Seaton Muttley.
And it is that Warren Buffett knows less government means more economic activity.
And we know he knows this by virtue of how he manages his businesses.
We don't know that from listening to him speak.
You remember the Buffett rule?
You know what the Buffett rule is?
The Buffett rule is a part of a tax plan proposed by Obama, B. Hussein O in 2011.
The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30% on people making more than a million dollars a year.
That's the Buffett rule.
Buffett came out in favor of it, using his secretary as an example.
His secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.
That was outrageous.
That was unfair.
Well, so rather than give his secretary a raise, Warren Buffett signed up with Obama, appearing to support tax increases on everybody else.
The Buffett rule named after Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011, that he believed it was wrong that rich people like him could pay less in federal taxes as a portion of income than the middle class.
And he voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy and low information.
See, see, he cares about us.
See, he's willing to give us some of his money with higher taxes.
That's how convoluted their thinking is.
Low information welfare state people think higher taxes equals more welfare for them.
Thank you, Democrat Party.
Okay.
Okay.
Now, knowing that, suppose rights, Mr. Motley.
Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with that investment idea.
This is a good one, he says enthusiastically.
I'm in it, and I think you should be too.
Well, what would your reply possibly be to this?
Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make.
If the Taxes are too high, I'd rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of one percent.
This is Buffett in a New York Times editorial in 2012.
And let me tell you what this is about.
Warren Buffett was trying to say, okay, suppose he was trying to say that people, investors, do not calculate tax rates before they invest their money.
And that's BS.
But he was trying to tell the low infrastructure.
Well, even anybody that reads the New York Times just the exact opposite.
That's why he wrote.
Suppose an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an idea.
It's a good one, he says.
I'm in it, and I think you should be too.
Would you say, well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be in a game.
But he's trying to say that people do not react to investment opportunities that way.
They don't think about the tax rate on the gain.
But they do all the time.
It's called the qu the capital gains tax rate for one, but there are all sorts of different taxes associated with investments.
And everybody precisely does just that.
Untaxed U.S. corporate profits held overseas are in excess of 2.1 trillion dollars.
A lot of that is Apple.
Apple has almost 140, 130 billion dollars overseas that they will not repatriate.
They will not bring it home.
They will not spend it here.
They will not invest it here because of the 35% tax rate.
And there are a lot of corporations doing the same thing.
That's why U.S. corporate profits untaxed overseas are over 2.1 trillion dollars.
Okay, let's flash forward to Warren Buffett, 2014.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is expected to help finance Burger King's pending acquisition of Canadian donut chain Tim Hortons.
The deal will allow Miami-based Burger King to claim Canada as its new legal home for tax purposes.
So Warren Buffett, who wants everybody to think that nobody invests with tax consequences in mind, and who wants everybody to think that he doesn't care about tax cuts, that he thinks people like him should be paying even more, is now helping lead the brokering of a deal which will result in fewer and smaller U.S. taxes for Burger King.
Now what's that if it's not blatant hypocrisy?
But throw the hypocrisy out.
What it is is smart.
What it is is good business.
Nobody should pay more in taxes than they have to.
Do you spend more than you have to at a store just to be a good public citizen?
Why should corporations pay more?
Why should individuals pay more than the law says?
Okay, so Burger King is gonna is going to acquire Tim Hortons and they're going to become headquartered in Canada.
Much lower corporate tax rate.
Oh no.
And of course, here comes the media and the barbarians and everybody dumping on Burger Kings, saying that they are not being good citizens.
They're fleeing the United States and not paying their fair share.
So much so that Burger Kings, we're not doing this for taxes.
The Buffett lesson.
We're not doing this for taxes.
We're not leaving the U.S. No, no, no, no.
We're doing this because we're gonna come the biggest, and we want to be the best fast food chain in the world, and this is how we have to.
And why shouldn't they?
Why should Buffett and Gates be the only guys that get away with hypocrisy on taxes?
You know, it's it's a it's just a it's it's a crazy thing.
Why is Canada more favorable to locate in the U.S. or anywhere because their corporate tax rates are so low.
So here you have, to sum up, Warren Buffett, publicly, people aren't paying enough taxes.
It's outrageous.
My secretary pays a higher percentage of taxes, and I that is not right.
I agree with President Obama.
I think the rich want to not paying their fair share.
I think the rich and the super rich and a 1% like me need to be paying more taxes.
But then Warren Buffett, this by the way, this is called an inversion.
It's what Walgreen did, which they then buckled and canceled the deal because of pressure.
But Warren Buffett is also saying this deal's not about taxes.
The combined company be based in Canada because of Tim Horton's strong roots north of the border.
And then in May, Warren Buffett said, I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won't pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe.
And that's very simple.
Well, a lot of people think that Warren Buffett thinks he's not paying enough.
A lot of people think that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates think they're not paying enough, and I think everybody's not paying enough, and everybody should be paying more.
And Warren Buffett does everything he can to pay as little as he can.
And then leads investment deals for people so they can escape high taxes.
So Ergo, we get this guy calling from Lakeland, telling us about his friends, who, when they hear Republicans talk about tax cuts, they think it's only for the rich.
Thank you, Warren Buffett.
Thank you, Bill Gates, thank you, Obama.
Thank you, Democrats.
Thank you for this total purposeful hypocrisy and lying confusion about this.
This is why I think there needs to be an artful, correct, passionate explanation, which makes me think of something else too, but I've you know what else I was thinking here, folks?
This this whole business of being a good citizen, a good citizen, patriotic citizen, good corporate citizen.
You know, all of these people, uh, they don't really state it, but uh uh the implication's clear that if you pay more than you owe in tax, you're a good citizen.
You're being very patriotic.
Or in in the case of Buffett and uh and Gates, all they have to do is come out and publicly say they for raising taxes on the rich.
And people, they're good citizens, they're great, great people.
And in real life, they do just the exact opposite.
It got me to thinking about something.
You ever wondered, it it was about this uh the religious business, I think it was in Colorado, that refused to bake a cake for a couple, gay couple getting married.
Remember, all the hell it descended on them, and they decided that if they weren't going to be allowed to run the business on it, it shut down.
You ever stop to think that apparently it is that a business must service anybody who walks in the door.
But do you patronize every business?
You and me, we are allowed to decide where we want to like what restaurant.
We're allowed to determine.
We can decide.
I don't want to go to that restaurant, I don't like the food.
Or I don't like the people there.
No, that restaurant's owned by a an ex-con.
I don't want to go there.
So consumers have the total right to be biased and prejudiced and discriminating against anybody.
But let somebody walk into a business and the business says, sorry, I'm not comfortable doing business with you.
Oh, yeah?
Oh, yeah.
Well, wait till I tweet this, you creep, and the guy's out of business.
What a one-way Street it is.
My point, look at all of the, I don't know, pressures or assumptions.
Look at all the baggage that we hamper business with.
Look at all the hoops they've got to go through, the regulations, all the stuff just to get started.
Not to mention the costs.
And they're not allowed to do MH.
They have no leeway whatsoever.
And if they offend one person, all that person has to do is go tweet, and it could be the end of their business.
But the tweeter, the person doing the tweeting can decide every day of the week what business to avoid, what business to patronize, and nobody says a word.
Nobody ever says that a customer is a racist, sexist, big or whatever by decisions he makes or she.
Anyway, sit tight, my friends.
Much more straight ahead, fastest three hours in media continue.
Tom Brokaw and many other former NBC executives are outraged, fit to be tied over recent comments by the new NBC president, news president, what have you.
▲
Export Selection