Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Obama is now 40 minutes late for an appearance on extending the payroll tax cut extension. I have a question, and I’ve asked this question on previous occasions. If, as the liberals say, there is a Social Security trust fund — and if it is funded, as the liberals say, by direct payroll tax deductions…?

In fact, folks, Social Security is funded by only one thing, payroll taxes, FICA. That’s the only way Social Security is funded. So the question then begins: “How does Obama get away with arguing that we need to cut payroll taxes that cut Social Security funding so that individuals have a thousand dollars, but then he also gets to claim to defend Social Security, which he is depleting by his own logic?” Extending the payroll tax cut depletes the Social Security trust fund. For those of you seasoned citizens, you have to understand the language. The payroll tax cut is “cutting taxes” paid into the only mechanism that funds Social Security.

It’s the Republicans that always want to “cut” Social Security; it’s the Republicans always want to kick seasoned citizens out of their houses, but here’s Obama, 40 minutes late now to a speech where he’s gonna lobby for an extension of payroll tax cut — and you notice how the Drive-Bys completely ignore this hypocrisy, and liberal Democrats completely ignore this hypocrisy, and notice how the Republicans incapable of making this point. The Republican leadership goes along with it because it’s a “tax cut,” and it puts money in the pockets of voters. It’s about a thousand dollars. The payroll tax cut is said to add $1000. But it’s been in place for a year, and it has not stimulated the economy. So, why are we gonna extend it? Why this tax?

Could somebody ‘splain to me why this tax Obama’s willing to cut? He will not cut income taxes. He will not cut corporate taxes or capital gains taxes, but he will cut the payroll tax. (interruption) Well, don’t give me that. He says a lot of people don’t pay income tax. You think he’s getting a better bang for the buck by cutting payroll taxes because everybody supposedly pays them. Fine and dandy. He’s defunding Social Security! Well, why doesn’t somebody on our side make the freaking point? Why do I have to be the one who does all this every day? When did that job become mine? Seriously. I mean, I don’t mind doing it, but why am I the lone voice on this stuff? Where are the Republicans on this? Why can’t we make the point?

Look, I’m so fed up with being told that I want to cut Social Security for the elderly and that I want to kick them out of their houses. Obama’s doing it! Where is our side making the case and in the process, defending themselves! (interruption) No, no, I don’t mind doing it. Don’t misunderstand me. Sometimes I think that I give these guys a work holiday. They sit there and think, “Oh, Limbaugh will attack Obama on that. We don’t have to. The other talk show hosts, they’ll attack Limbaugh on that. We don’t have to.” Hell, people are talking about a third party? Will somebody give us a second one? Can we have a second party, please, that’s not talk radio? Sorry, folks. I’m not bleeding on you here.

RUSH: No, what Obama wants to do in order to pay for his Social Security tax cut is to raise taxes on the rich. That’s how he’s getting around this notion that there really aren’t any Social Security reductions. He’s gonna raise taxes on the rich. But there are Social Security cuts, because FICA is the only funding mechanism for Social Security! So if he raises taxes on the rich, he’s not gonna transfer that money to the Social Security account — there isn’t one anyway. It’s all just to penalize the achievers. These are the same “rich” people whose Social Security benefits Obama would like to cut. Now, my example about the enemy being the people who work, I use the example of you go in and buy a dishwasher from somebody.

“We’re gonna punish those people!” The reason that we’re gonna punish the guy who sold the dishwasher is because he sold it for more than it cost him. He sold it for profit and that’s evil, ’cause he screwed people! He made money off of that sale! So he made money off of them. Those people needed a dishwasher. He shoulda let ’em have it for what it cost him. That’s the thinking today. No. I kid you not. That’s the thinking. He’s supposed to stay in business because it doesn’t cost him anything. He doesn’t lose anything. So since he’s supposed to say in business, if he charges exactly what it cost that’s fair, so everybody gets a dishwater for real cost, a car at real cost. There’s no profit in it and therefore nobody’s getting screwed or taken advantage of or what have you.

The purpose of a business is to create health care in the community. That’s what these people think. If you go out and tell ’em… You know, there’s a movement on to strike the word “capitalism” from our lexicon — and the next thing I’m gonna hear is somebody will send me a note, “You know what? We need to stop talking about ‘profit,’ too, Rush. We just need to focus on ‘economic freedom.’ We’re losing the argument on capitalism. Capitalism is a horrible term, it means people get screwed.” It didn’t mean that until two years ago. So the left comes along and distorts the language, we cave to it, so we can’t use “capitalism.” We’re supposed to talk about “economic freedom” now. The next thing is I’m gonna get notes from people, “You better stop talking about profits…”

From friends of mine, I’ll hear: “You better stop talking about profit! ‘Profit,’ that’s a loaded word now. Don’t mention there’s profit in anything. We can’t keep talking about profit.” How come we don’t get government services at their real cost, hmm? How can the government can make profit left and right, government can screw people, left and right? How come the same standard’s not applied? (sigh) Anyway, I grow weary.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This