All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
June 10, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Buck Saxon here in for Rush.
So good to be with you.
It's been a while.
Last time I had the chance was New Year's Eve, or New Year's Eve day, if memory serves.
Again, I'm of the Blaze, formerly a CIA analyst, the counterterrorism center, specializing in Iraq and then Afghanistan, also the NYPD intelligence division.
I'm a CNN contributor and a host at The Blaze and editor at the Blaze.com.
So Marco Boats has now caught fire.
Not literally, obviously, but it's all over social media.
People are talking about Marco boats left and right.
No doubt many of you were able to uh pick up some of the this the stories yesterday, the social media chatter about how Marco Rubio, yes, he spent eighty thousand dollars on what was described as a luxury speed boat by the New York Times.
A luxury speed boat.
Now this immediately conjured up thoughts, at least in my mind, and I'm guessing that there are a fair amount of former Miami Vice watchers out there, the TV show, not the movie.
I can't can't say that I'm a fan of the movie.
The TV show, though, however, uh certainly had its had its uh days.
And I'm thinking of Marco Rubio now, and he's flying around the uh well, I shouldn't say flying around.
He's tearing it up on the waters right off of Miami in a five hundred thousand dollar racing boat.
He's like a character in Miami Vice, lighting his Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills, Marco boats.
And then we find out that, well, when you look at the actual boat itself, it looks like something that sort of goes and go buzzes along, and you know, may maybe maybe you'll catch uh maybe you'll catch some bluefish, uh, maybe you'll catch some bonefish, you know.
That's that's the kind of day you're gonna have out there, maybe with the family, hanging out, drop some lines out there, see what you catch.
Not exactly part of Thurston Howell III's fleet, uh, not something that's going to impress Sheikhs and uh strong men and dictators from around the world.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't fit a helicopter on there.
You might say that the canopy is the tiniest helipad in the world, but that would be stretching it.
I don't know if it would be stretching it for the New York Times, however.
I don't think that that necessarily would be the case.
They seem willing to stretch all credulity in order to try to make some sort of a a presentation of Rubio as a spendthrift as someone who is just reckless.
Did you know that he got a speeding ticket every few years when he was uh living in Florida?
That's just atrocious.
It's insane.
It's unthinkable, they would say.
And yes, he's out there on his Marco boat.
Oh, the Marco boats.
It's just fabulous.
We can't have any of the common people out there on those fishing vessels.
And you find out that yes, in fact, it is a very plain fishing vessel.
I mean, this is the equivalent of calling a wood-paneled station wagon uh, you know, a drag racing supercar.
It was just a normal boat.
And if you live in South Florida, I assume that that's pretty standard for a lot of people.
It's not outrageous.
It's something that people aspire to.
It's seems very within the the realm of what's possible for someone who is middle class and continuing to make more, hit his peak earning years.
But they were just doing anything they could with this.
And I love the back and forth, and you saw this with a variety of journalists as well, the back and forth over, well, is it described described as a luxury vessel?
I mean, this is sort of like saying, yeah, sure, there are lots of apartments that a realtor will tell you is a luxury apartment, but there are some standards that go into this.
I don't think just because they say it, it means that we all have to believe it.
So as I said, the Rubio yacht is for a seaborn vessel, really about as fancy as a family wood paneled station wagon.
Still a big purchase for a lot of families, but not something that's outrageous or outside the realm of possibility.
And I don't think Senator Rubio was lighting his expensive cigars with hundred dollar bills because of this Rubio boat.
I also think now that Rubio Boats has become a thing, so now you can go in when you're discussing salary in a job interview and say, Well, you know, sir, I think I'm worth at least three Rubio boats.
Or if you do the math, because a Ruby boat is apparently eighty K, eighty thousand dollars, a Rubio boat will get you maybe a quarter, maybe a half hour of Hilly Hillary Clinton's time.
And so this is so silly, and it's obviously the second time around.
First, you had the attempts to say that Rubio was some sort of a a lead-footed maniac driving super fast all over the place, and they put his wife into the mix as well, Which also was very unseemly, although we'll get into how unseemly the Times is in just a second here.
Why are they doing this?
Well, on that notion of the Times and what they're willing to say, that they're going to put out there a story that essentially makes it clear that Rubio is a pretty average driver.
It's not anything out of the norm, but they want to put it in a light that makes it seem concerning, like he's a risk taker, he's a risky guy.
And then they put this out about how he's bought this boat, and like so many Americans, has struggled to pay his mortgage, has never defaulted.
People talk about him taking risks.
Think about how many Americans have taken risks that didn't allow them to actually make the payments.
Senator Rubio's made the payments, and any financial advisor sitting down with him, one would think, could at least to some degree assume or plan into things that Rubio is going to make more money in the future.
That is likely.
He is hitting his peak earning years.
He is not about to retire.
In fact, as we know, he's running for president.
So why is the Times doing this?
Well, first I just wanted to say that this should be nothing new to anyone.
I know it's nothing new to you, and that the Times would sell out any sort of pretense of journalistic objectivity is this is very standard.
In fact, this isn't nearly as bad as what they did some years ago, and I know many of you will recall this when they insinuated in a very slimy and underhanded way, that Senator John McCain had had some kind of an affair.
And when confronted on this, when there was a public outcry for this completely unsourced and really backhanded accusation that could that wasn't just a question of whether this might ruin someone's political aspirations, but also their marriage and perhaps their life.
When confronted with this at the time, the editor, Bill Keller, said that if the point of their story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we'd have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members.
But that was not the point of the story.
The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior.
Oh, you see, it's not that we made an unsubstantiated allegation of an affair against a married man.
It's that we're saying he's just generally reckless and the affair was a data point in that overall scheme.
Oh, well, in that case, New York Times, I guess everything's fine.
Preposterous.
Absolutely ridiculous and completely unacceptable, but again, none of this is a surprise to you.
It does feel sloppy, though, which is probably the bigger concern for a lot of the Democrats out there.
It does feel weak.
It feels very JV to borrow a term from the president.
Feels very JV indeed that they would come out with these hit pieces that aren't really hit pieces, and in fact, in some ways, could have the long-term consequences of bolstering a Rubio candidacy.
So not really hit pieces.
I think it's pretty clear that a lot of Americans will be sitting around.
Those who aren't already in the tank for Hillary, those who aren't already ready for Hillary, might sit there and say, well, here's a man who's self-made, who understands what the struggle is, is not going through some ridiculous charade, pretending to understand the struggle, a guy who's actually had to make boat payments, a guy who's had to make house payments, hasn't always known that he could make those payments, maybe that will make him someone that the American people can relate to more.
Just maybe.
And I'm not solving the idea that Rubio is the best candidate.
I'm just saying if you compare him to Hillary, and it seems quite strange that The Times at this point is going after Rubio so strongly.
you Perhaps they are concerned about him.
He certainly does match up against Hillary in some very unfavorable ways.
Most notably because at the heart and soul of a Democratic Party right now, identity politics and class warfare.
Well, the identity politics of having a former first lady, former senator, former Secretary of State, and yes, she's going to try to mobilize the female vote, of course, but it's not as powerful as what the Democrats have been used to in recent years.
It's just not going to have the same resonance.
She really needs that class warfare envy politics in order for her to actually win this election coming up.
She needs it.
And what's going to be fascinating is that this works so well against Mid Romney, and you get the sense that the Democratic machine is so knee-jerk and reactionary on these things that they figured, well, we'll just try the same playbook somehow.
It doesn't really necessarily work in this case, but and they've opened themselves up to endless mockery, of course.
Because you have the ultimate Plutocrat and corrupt insider with Hillary Clinton going around ordering a Chipotle, pretending to be America's caring granny, and she just wants to be friends with everyone, and she just wants to know what's going on at your kitchen table.
I know what it is to have trouble paying bills too.
No, she does not.
Except when she was in the White House and her husband's legal bills, as she said, left them broke.
But that financial issue apparently was not worthy of disqualifying her from office, that you would have someone who is so reckless in their personal life as to go bankrupt while in office as president, paying legal bills for the defense of those personal issues.
That doesn't disqualify you from office.
That's not a problem.
At least not to the leftist media.
You see, the Democrat machine is rattled right now.
They've gotten a little lazy over the last six years.
They've been able to just continue on with the drumbeat of Obama's a genius.
Any criticism of this presidency is racist.
They've just been able to do that.
And so there's a laziness now, and they've also gotten used to sort of fighting the last war, so to speak, pushing the last narrative for the last election.
This time around, no matter how much they try, no matter how much control of different media outlets they may have, no matter how dirty they get, they're not going to be able to convince the American people that Hillary, I need 250K a speech and only diet crimson shasta in a nice little fridge next to the parlor room before I go out there and prep with my prepared remarks and tell people stuff that they don't need to know or already know.
That Hillary is somehow the common man's candidate.
That Hillary's the one who understands your pain.
No, that's actually her husband's game.
He understands.
And he fails it.
Hillary, on the other hand, not gonna lie, she's a little cold, a little rough.
And so here we are.
They have hit pieces that are so inept that they seem more likely to help the Republican candidate because the machine is rattled.
They are concerned.
The old playbook isn't going to work this time.
This is going to be a real election.
This is going to be a real fight.
Back in just a minute.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today.
800-282-2882.
You can also send me tweets at Buck Sexton on Twitter, a live tweet throughout the show, and Facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
I'll even respond to Facebook messages if I can during the break.
Let's talk a minute, shall we, about the latest Hillary donation request.
Now, of course, when you talk donations with the Clintons, you also have to keep in mind that of all of the Clintonian legacies, I think the pollution of charitable giving is probably the one that we will remember the longest.
The idea that you can give money to charity and you're actually really giving money to somebody's political and financial aspirations fund.
This is something that now the American people have to pay attention to.
That charity's not necessarily just about helping people or some group of some kind somewhere.
No, the charity can be all about self-interest.
They have polluted charitable giving, and that's something that we shouldn't soon forget, especially if it comes down to the possibility of us having to give over the reins of the most powerful office in the country for the most powerful country in the world, to this woman who is continuously grasping and also hiding at the same time.
Latest here in this via the weekly standard is that she's asking donors for one dollar.
Just one dollar.
Now, of course, some would say that this is an effort to just turn on the spigot, just get it going a little bit.
Have that faucet begin a trickle, and maybe later there can be more.
I also think, though, it's an effort at public relations here because you know, Hillary's living on a prayer.
She's going to be giving uh a fundraiser soon for with Bon Jovi, attending the fundraiser, and the tickets for that are going to cost a couple thousand bucks, of course.
So she's got that going on, you know, rubbing elbows with celebrities, and you're gonna see all the celebrities coming out of the woodwork, and that's just the way that this is going to be.
But asking donors for a dollar at least gives the appearance of this being grassroots, you know.
She just wants people who are ready for Hillary.
Yay.
I tell you, this to me is about as authentic as Gwyneth Paltrow, who I think did the food stamps challenge not long ago, and she spent all of her money on kale and limes, which I will tell you will not get you very far.
And nor is it particularly tasty.
In fact, now that I've said this, I think we can probably just count the days until Hillary is some kind of a PR stunt also puts herself on the so-called food stamps challenge just to sort of show how in touch with the common man she is.
And woman.
Fuck, don't forget that.
Can't just say the common man.
Pardon me.
It's ridiculous.
This this English language usage that we have that doesn't always constantly bow before the PC gods.
It's an embarrassment, I tell you.
The common person, sir.
Oh, now I have corrected myself.
And in case you weren't sure enough about whether the State Department was in some way, at some level at least, complicit in covering up Hillary's emails and making sure that they are double scrubbed.
Remember that.
So she keeps her private homebrew server, and the emails are double scrubbed, meaning that she gets to decide what's handed over to state, and then state gets to decide what's handed over to the public, and that's just a fraction of a fraction, but they think that's transparency.
That's right.
The Clintons.
Transparent as a mudslide.
And now we see via the Washington Examiner that Hillary's officials at the State Department cut criticism out of official State Department reports.
And the State Department and uh State Department inspector general edited out passages of a high profile report in 2013 that could have embarrassed Hillary Clinton just days before she quit President Obama's cabinet.
End quote from the examiner here.
Oh, so you mean to tell me, wait a second, back this up.
My mind is blown.
You mean to tell me that the senior most government official of a large federal agency has people within that agency who are either terrified of stepping out of line and upsetting that official or are dependent upon that very powerful government person, not men or woman, of course, person, just want to be clear, I'm not gonna gender specify here.
Uh, but that a person at that point at that level of the State Department pyramid would get some sort of special treatment, just as a function of the power that he or she wields.
Of course that's not surprising at all, but it's important to keep these things in mind because if we're to believe that Hillary is transparent because she's turning over some emails that she controls in the first place, and then state gets to determine which of those are going to go forward, we're not going to find out anything.
And she has evaded these requirements, in letter and in spirit.
She's been successful in doing so.
So this is who the American people are now being told by the Democratic Party to vote for.
Someone who and by the way, I would put out there to you, if you're not familiar with the nineties, if you want a sort of quick primer on what it was really like with the Clintons and their integrity, or vast lack, massive lack thereof, go back and read Christopher Hitchens No One Left to Lie To.
Go back and listen to some of the interviews given by officials who are by writers rather, and pundits who were paying attention at the time.
They have no integrity to protect, and people with no integrity to protect are essentially capable of doing a whole number of things.
So here we are now.
We have the media mobilized around Hillary, doing everything they can, everything possible to convince you that the charity's no problem, that the massive uh corruption that the rest of us see from this, because remember, just ask the governor of former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonald, whether you have to actually get something in exchange for something in order for you to get sent to prison.
The answer is no.
And federal prosecutors across the land have been enforcing the law in this way already.
If it appears corrupt, they can make a case against you and have, and sometimes even successfully.
So here we have Hillary now.
She's out there, she's doing all she's been doing all this stuff for years.
They have to amend the tax returns of their charity.
How many charities do you know of, by the way, that have to do on the spot desperate uh amending of their tax returns?
I'm just putting that out there.
Why can't they tell us exactly how many dollars were spent for what could really be described as charitable causes versus how many dollars were really just part of the Clinton family slush fund.
And as we see, it's really lucrative and valuable to be a Clinton.
I mean, even Chelsea, who is now running the Clinton Foundation, received what, almost ten Marco boats in order to stand in front of a camera at NBC for a couple of minutes.
Ten Marco boats.
That's a pretty good deal for her.
Maybe she could even up it a little bit and get a Hillary jet.
Because as we know, Hillary is a private jet progressive.
So why have a little little fishing boat when you can get a private jet?
That's what I would ask you.
Right.
I mean, this is what's fascinating to me.
If you actually were dealing with a news organization that wanted transparency and truth, maybe they would look into who's been paying for all of that private jet travel for the Clintons over the last oh ten years or so.
Trust me, it's not coming out of the Clintons pockets.
There are plenty of ways that they can gain that system.
But no, they'd rather they'd rather take a look at what's going on with Marco Rubio and his little fishing boat.
It's pretty pre uh uh pretty preposterous when you think about it.
Eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
We are gonna be back here in just a minute.
Buck Sexton here in for rush today.
Eight hundred two eight two eight eight two.
Lines are open, taking some calls here.
Let's get uh Mark in Manhattan, who a fellow Manhattanite.
Mark, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show, you're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Hi, Bob, thanks for uh having me on.
So I I have to say I I think you're really missing the point on the Marco boat here.
Now, as a uh as a caveat, you know, I am a liberal, but I will tell you if he had the money and he wanted to buy himself a ten million dollar luxury boat, I say go for it.
I have no problem at all with him doing that.
Okay.
The concern is that we want a president, especially now who's fiscally responsible.
So the concern that I have, and again, I want to get all the information in, but I think that a concern that a lot of us, not just liberals, conservatives also have is not that the boat was like you said, had a helipad or didn't have a helipad and go fishing for Marlin or for some tiny little minnows.
The concern is that if somebody's in debt, owes money to other people, and has the opportunity to spend eight eighty thousand dollars towards their debt or towards what I think we can all agree is not a necessity.
It's interesting and important for us to see where the money goes.
So again, there's okay, so there's a few there's a few levels here, Mark, and and I I'm I'm clear on what your position is on this, I think, because uh my understanding is this is the standard uh leftist democrat positioning on it, which is the Marco Rubio spends money.
Here are a few things we need to keep in context.
One is that the difference between a ten million dollar boat and an eighty thousand dollar boat is obviously not just financially, but from an optics perspective, it's substantial, right?
This isn't a j this isn't the uh you know the HMS John Kerry, which is trying to avoid certain ports of call so they don't have to pay taxes.
I mean, this isn't millions and millions of dollars spent on some sort of a pleasure craft.
This is a a relatively I know people say, Oh, you don't need a boat, but it's South Florida, he wants a boat.
Okay.
That's one part of it.
That does matter, right?
It does matter whether we're talking about a uh a Saudi prince's multi-million dollar yacht or we're talking about something that you just take with the family to go fishing on the weekends.
Also, he hasn't defaulted on any obligation.
So to call him financially irresponsible seems particularly harsh.
He's paid all of his obligations and also is betting on himself to some degree.
The guy got an eight hundred thousand dollar book advance, he figures he's gonna be able to pay for things like an eighty thousand dollar boat and a fifty thousand dollar car.
And then beyond that, your point about being indebted to somebody, well, what would you rather have?
Someone who is indebted to a bank or a a a car dealership or a boat dealer in Florida, or somebody who's in who's in debt to a Russian uranium mining concession, or someone who's in debt to the Saudis for writing huge checks to a foundation to fund their lifestyle, their politics and their travel.
I mean, that's that's really part of the issue here is that Marco Rubio is dealing with other Americans to to get all these things done and to pay for these things.
You know, the Clintons are at least selling the appearance of access, which is problematic in and of itself.
If she were a lower level official, if he were a low well, he's out of office, obviously and has been for a while, but if she were a lower level official, there'd be big problems here.
And by the way, they prosecuted the spouse in the McDonald case as well.
And she's not a public official of any kind.
She's the first lady as a governor.
I mean, that's not really an elected office.
So I mean, Mark, I we just have to agree to disagree on whether this is legitimate.
Also, by the way, I've learned more about Marco Rubio's finances in two New York Times articles of the last week than I have ever heard about President Obama's finances.
And if you're gonna talk about fiscal responsibility, it's kind of a laugh for Democrats to bring this up now when you've got Barack Obama on a path to spend eight trillion dollars, bringing us well beyond eighteen trillion in debt, and now we're gonna pretend like we care about fiscal responsibility.
The whole Democratic Party's platform is built upon printing endless amounts of money, redistributing it to people, and running up enormous debt.
So we have to just leave it there, my friend.
We agree to disagree.
I think that that's I think it's not relevant, but they can put it out there.
No one says the New York Times can't.
Let's take um Casey in Delray Beach.
Casey, this is the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Hey, thank you for taking my call.
Thank you.
I've been listening to you all morning, and I I'm just kind of laughing how you've come up with it.
I am funny.
The only way Hillary can win is by class warfare.
And you you don't you don't you don't see it that why conservatives lose elections.
It's not because of class warfare.
It's because conservatives want to keep rehashing social issues, and that's why they're gonna lose.
That's why you're gonna lose the 2016 election, because you you don't want to you let go on social issues is one of the biggest things.
So Casey, wait, can I just ask?
You're a Democrat, right?
I'm assuming this.
You're you're you're a liberal, you're a leftist.
I'm a I'm a I'm a proud registered independent.
Okay.
But so you th you think that the way for the Republicans and I I'm guessing you voted for Barack Obama in at least one of the last proudly, yes.
Oh, okay.
So I mean, you're not really an independent then, but you can register as whatever you want.
That that's fair enough.
But you think that the way for the Republican Party to win is to not deal with core issues that are absolutely essential to the base.
I mean, I always think it's fascinating that the Democratic Party never has to worry about whether or not you know they don't have to worry about cobbling together or worry about whether they're gonna um betray their principles in order to get votes, right?
They'll do whatever they have to do at any point in time, but for some reason Republicans aren't supposed to and the GOP is not supposed to appeal to the base.
I I don't understand how that logic is supposed to work.
Well, you're gonna you're gonna keep losing elections, and then they explain to you.
This is not a Christian nation, even though conservatives uh a Christian.
It is a majority Christian nation.
It's still a major it is still a majority Christian nation.
Most voters are I mean, if we're gonna disagree on this, I don't know what to tell you.
You gotta bust out the Google and do some searches.
With the Constitution, and that's what conservatives do.
They confuse the two.
Uh well, I I I think I think we will leave your advice aside.
You're entitled to give it, and you've given it to a lot of people now, but I don't think that that's where the GOP is going to go.
But thank you for calling in Casey from Del Ray.
Let's take uh Joel in Tallahassee, Florida.
Joel, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Hello, bud, how are you doing?
Good.
It's Buck.
Good.
Hey, I was just wondering about the uh Marco boat comment.
Anyone who knows votes knows that's not an eight hundred thousand dollar speedboat like you're talking about.
That's it's an eighty thousand dollar boat.
Was it a veil was it a veiled comment about his Cuban heritage and and the Mario boat lift?
No.
Could that have been like a little backhanded slap at the Cuban people who vote Republican most of the time?
No.
It was a reference to the fact that they describe it as a luxury speed boat, and I don't think that Marco Rubio could get away from me if I was in a canoe in that thing.
That's what it's a reference to.
I agree.
Okay.
All right.
Well, thank you for calling in, Joel.
Uh let's take um what do we have here?
Uh John in St. Louis.
John, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Buck, it's an honor, sir.
Second, uh I you're you're a good substitute for Rush.
Thank you.
And I went I lived in his hometown for four years attending college at Southeast Missouri State.
Well, thank you very much, sir.
But anyway, uh, first of all, uh, you know, uh I'm just an average Joe out here in St. Louis.
Tough economy here.
Uh good jobs are hard to find.
And I think people are wanting truth, and we don't get enough truth in the liberal media.
And the hypocrisy of bringing up a boat purchase that Mr. Rubio paid his own money for and avoiding talking about Hillary's daughter and her new husband that just spent what, 10.5 million on some new digs in New York.
You know, she's down with the folks, isn't she, uh, Buck?
And then what about the five hundred thousand dollar charges that Bull Bill charges just to open up his mouth and speak, and a lot of hot air comes out.
I mean, it's it's total hypocrisy.
The liberal media turns a blind eye to anything that these liberal democrats do.
They get away with everything.
Like you were mentioning the charitable organization.
How much is it, Buck after each dollar that's given to the Clinton charity?
How much is actually used for the charitable purpose of the case?
Can I say, John, that that shouldn't be a number that we have to search for or guess at?
Any reputable charity can tell you that right away.
That the Clintons are like, oh, we got all these expenses, and oh, it's really tough.
Or we'll have to get back to you on that.
Just tells you that the whole thing is essentially a system of kickbacks for their old buddies and uh it's just a giant slush fund.
I mean it's meant to fund the Clinton brand, the Clinton lifestyle and their future political aspirations or the f the aspirations at least of Hillary.
And look, no other president leaves office and has his speaking fees go up over time.
Okay?
The further you are for elected office, the less valuable you would tend to be on the speaking circuit for obvious reasons.
With Bill, that's not the case.
With Bill it's yeah no, I'm out, but you know, my wife's real powerful now, so why don't you double up that check there and send some ladies over to give it to me.
I mean the whole thing.
He's able to somehow command higher fees, more money when she becomes Secretary of State.
This is obvious.
If this were insider trading, they would be the people that kept picking the winner over and over again in a stock that they clearly had inside information on.
They can't just say oh we're lucky that doesn't work in insider trading and it doesn't work or it shouldn't work rather in politics but they're getting away with it because the media is letting them but John I think it's appalling.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't even that people aren't more upset about this than they are based upon what we found out.
Yes, but it doesn't get reported.
See it's like 1984 that I studied in high school we're living it.
They put out lies in the media they pick what stories they want to focus on each day.
I've turned off the the the the national media except for Fox News and people like yourself on non conservative talk shows.
I just want truth Buck that's what people want they want truth.
They want straight talk.
And as far as that guy that said to avoid the social issues if the Republicans avoid the social issues they will go down in flames.
Yeah why not just be Democrats?
If you're gonna avoid the social issues, why not just change party affiliation?
What what are we really we're fighting over what at that point?
The size of the welfare state and the and the level of of uh taxation that we're allowed to uh inflict on ourselves I mean this is just it's ridiculous but people are going to keep holding to this and they think that there's a way that'll make everybody happy that if somehow it's always conservatives have to abandon their principles by the way it's never the other side right if you just come over if you just abandon social issues then you'll get more votes.
Not a recipe for success but you generally don't want to take tactical or strategic advice from the other side from the opposition.
John from St. Louis, good to talk to you my friend thank you for your time.
I'm on Twitter at Buck Sexton, send me some tweets also go to Facebook.com slash Bucksexton please like the page 800 28282.
Let's talk about student loans for a second this will be fun.
And Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders back in a minute Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today.
Tomorrow Eric Erickson is in Friday Roger Hedgecock is in and then Rush will be back on Monday.
800 two eight two two eight eight two is the call in number if you're a little shy you don't want to call me you don't want to go voice to voice here you can always send me messages Facebook.com slash Buck Sexton or at Buck Sexton.
I may I'm gonna check some tweets in a few minutes here.
I've been sort of caught up in this because I really get excited about talking a little bit about Bernie Sanders if I may for just a just a moment here but we got Bernie it's Bernie time because the great thing about Bernie Sanders is for one he's an avoid socialist.
He's out there he'll tell you you know he he believes in socialism but he's very honest about it.
He's not going to change his mind.
He's you know I'm gonna take the wealth from you I'm gonna give it to you we're all going to be friends.
It's gonna get much better.
You know we're gonna just be friends here.
It's not a problem.
I'm up in Vermont it's lovely.
I mean it's cold as as you know what in the winter time but the rest of the year it's great socialist paradise.
Okay.
So he's passing all right I'm gonna stop for a second so I can tell you what's actually going on.
He's passing legislation or wants to pass legislation rather to make uh college education uh public college education free for all.
Now this is interesting.
Yeah this is because everything free is always better than pay for it right and no one there are ways that government can make things free so they tell us that doesn't require anyone to pay for it.
So we get to this point where we have, for example, the New York Times and a lot of New York Times talk today apologies for that.
We've got someone writing how they defaulted on their student loans actively and and sort of knowingly and willfully just decided to say forget it, I'm not paying it.
Not that I can't not that I've come on hard times I'm just not going to pay it and live with the consequences of that.
And this has actually been adopted by some of the community organizers out there and some of the others as a form of sort of civil disobedience I suppose or economic protest or whatever you want to call it to try to get masses of people.
There is a trillion dollars of student loan debt out there right now.
We have more people going to more schools getting more worthless degrees than at any time in history.
Now that's not to say there aren't a lot of people going to college doing great stuff.
Of course there are But people should understand that this is a product, this is a service, this is something that you buy, and that if you're going to force the government to subsidize these loans, which is what's essentially happened, and the Obama administration's fix for student loans has been to say, well, let's cut out the middleman.
Let's not let banks do the lending.
We'll just do the lending.
You know, we'll be the lender on these things.
And now you're hearing them say, well, this is no surprise.
When something is free for everyone, or rather, when you knock down the barriers to entry entirely, which is what really happens here, whether it's for mortgages, right?
Forget about lending criteria for a mortgage, just give them to pretty much everybody.
Mortgages are a right.
Mortgages are a right.
Whose streets are streets?
You get it, right?
This is what they chant, this is what they say, and they believe that if you can create you can create rights out of anything, anything becomes a right.
Someone else's property can become your right.
In the case of student loans, what we've seen is a movement to have two things happen simultaneously.
More and more government funding of these loans, then you create, or rather government giving these loans and subsidizing them, and they're at below market rates, and then a simultaneous effort, or now it's simultaneous because they're trying to shift it to say, look, you just shouldn't have to pay for this at all.
Well, of course, when they say free, what they mean is the taxpayer pays.
When they say free, what they really mean is you pay, I pay, everyone else pays, but not the person who thinks they're getting this for free.
And if we had to actually take responsibility for our financial decisions, there might be fewer double majors in Central American literature, 1850 to 1875, and women and Islamic constructions of gender in the eighth century, right?
I mean, there might be fewer double majors in these sorts of things.
People might say, Am I getting a training for some kind of a job?
So you can do that, and we can have an adult discussion over whether is college even necessary for everyone.
Does everyone have to go to college?
Are there some trades that it's better to just work in?
Is that something that we should consider?
Can we have that discussion?
Well, you can't really have that discussion in a meaningful way when you've got Bernie Sanders out there and others promoting the idea that all college should be free.
I don't understand why we stop there.
Because it becomes like high school.
It was the case that not everyone finished high school, then we made it we had this massive expansion, enormous government spending in the public education system.
More and more people finish high school.
Well, now guess what?
Employers want an undergraduate degree.
Okay, so now we have more and more people getting an undergraduate degree.
Now guess what?
They want an advanced degree.
So at some point, you're gonna have a workforce of or you're gonna have more and more people that to get an edge in the workforce are gonna say, I need an advanced degree.
And then they're gonna want to have their PhD paid for.
Like we're in like Sweden or Germany or something.
Like you just can stay for as long as you want, and the government pays for it.
It's amazing.
Wunderbar, it's fantastic.
They actually think this stuff.
And people wonder why, well, yeah, it's nice to live in that country if you want to study, you know, Norse mythology for ten years.
I know I'm totally pigeon-holding some of those countries, but uh it's nice to have someone else pay for education, but there are costs that are associated with that that the rest of society has to bear.
You mean it's not actually free?
Yeah, I mean it's not actually free.
The government takes money from people and puts that on the tab.
So here we are now, but Bernie Sanders is out there and he's making these claims.
He's saying, you know, I got an idea.
We're just gonna like have everybody go, they're gonna finish, they're gonna get the degree they need, and then you know, we're just gonna pay for it.
You know, I know it's gonna come from somebody.
You got these fat cats on Wall Street, not the fat cats given to Hillary, those fat cats are the good fat cats.
But the other ones are terrible, and I've had enough of it, and it's ridiculous, and it's out of control, and it's Bernie's night, and the mood is right for socialism.
Bucks accent in for rush limbaugh, 800, 282-2882, taking some calls back in a minute.
Buck Sexton here in for rush limbaugh.
I'm of course a host at the Blaze, a CNN contributor and former CIA analyst, we'll be getting into the Middle East later on in the show, some very interesting things happening in Iraq that I want to get into with you as well as elsewhere uh in the what used to be called the war on terror or the GWAT, the global war on terror.
I know some still refer to it that way.
You still have a colleague who walked around and said, You can't stop when the GWAT's hot.
We were very busy.
Um so we'll talk a bit about the Middle East, and uh, we got a lot of that coming up.
Also, top of the next hour, I want to talk about immigration with you for a second, because if you were to think of the most storied American company imaginable, there'll be a few names that come to mind, right?
You might think IBM, GE, but if you're looking for one that's all about our dreams at America, Disney would certainly be very high on that list.
But how does Disney treat American workers?
And how does immigration factor into that?
This is gonna be some good stuff, you're not gonna want to miss it.
▲
Export Selection