RUSH: Scott in Atlanta. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. It's great to talk to you. Regarding the Huffington Post article you were discussing in the first hour, there's something I don't understand and never have understood, regarding these predictions like the one they made that we're gonna be out of our resources and need another earth in 18 years. It seems to me that if the left hates our lifestyles and hates the way we live and wants us to change, they would be thrilled and overjoyed that we were gonna be out of resources in 18 years because then we would be living the lifestyle that they want us to live. So I don't understand why they don't welcome this depletion of resources.
RUSH: Well, you know, it's an excellent point. By the same token, why aren't they happy if the earth is getting warmer? What's the problem? What goes wrong if the earth is getting warmer?
CALLER: You know, I really don't know. If the earth is gonna get warmer, it's gonna get warmer and there's nothing we could do about it.
RUSH: Well, you make an excellent point, because they do want to take us back to the Stone Age. I mean they really do. This is why, folks, the environmental nutcases that he's talking about, the Huffing and Puffington Post, the World Wildlife Fund, these people, they really do believe -- and it's tough for you to get your arms around this -- they really do believe that the primary problem the planet has is us, humanity. The rest of all life forms on this planet are au natural, they are perfectly justified in being. They are unassailable in what they do, and how they live, from a tree, to a snail darter, to a lizard, to a shark, to a lion, to a tiger, they are the essence of perfection.
You will never, ever, hear the environmentalist wackos criticize what lions do or criticize what parakeets do, you pick an animal. They really believe that the singular problem, the threat, the only threat this planet has is us. And therefore there needs to be fewer of us in order to save the planet. It's the most cockeyed, illogical, stupid way of thinking. We are every bit a part of nature as is everything else, and everything on this planet has to adapt, and that's the one thing they cannot come to grips with. They don't believe in adaptation. They don't think it; they don't consider it; they don't think it possible, or at least when we do adapt by inventing air-conditioning, they're offended. Somehow that is an assault on the planet. It's not natural. Anything that wasn't here before we came along, anything that we invented, created, is unnatural and an assault on the planet.
The vanity of these people is striking. For example, in the global warming movement, one of my favorite questions to ask, because it illustrates the vanity. Take a look at the timeline of humanity. And there are many different opinions here on how long human beings have walked the earth or crawled the earth. But whatever the length of time, be it thousands of years or millions, whatever the length of time -- and I'm not trying to start an argument about that. My point is, the lifestyle of the American male is just north of 80. Eighty years is a speck of dust. Even if it's that large, 80 years is a speck of dust in the timeline of eternity. And yet the vanity of these environmentalist wackos to try to tell us that the speck of dust that represents us is perfection and normal and what has always been and therefore what should be maintained.
My point is, we are just a speck of dust on the timeline, and if the temperature goes up a degree Celsius in a hundred years, it's a crisis, it's a problem. How in the world can anybody know that climatological or meteorological or any other circumstances on this planet at this point in time are, quote, unquote, normal? And therefore are the benchmark for what needs to be maintained? Who's to say that the way it was 300 years ago isn't normal? And what's normal anyway? Who gets to define that? The vanity of these people, combined. It's an interesting thing. They have this vanity. They're all powerful, we're all powerful. We can destroy the planet. We single-handedly with our automobiles and inventions can destroy the planet. And then, on the other hand, we're no different than mice or rats. We're just inconsequential.
At the same time, we are these all-powerful, destructive beings. But it goes right along with my theory that everybody's historical perspective begins with the date of their birth. Everybody alive thinks that the time they are alive is the most important on earth, the most important time in the world. It's the most dangerous. It's the riskiest. It's the worst of everything, the best of everything, however they think. And yet where's the mathematical equation to tell us that conditions, circumstances now, are the ones etched in stone that must be maintained? Who is to say that maybe right now we're a little cooler in the world than we ought to be for optimal potential. Who's to say? They don't know.
We're just a bunch of stewards here, if that. We're just a bunch of inhabitants. We happen to be the most intelligent. Therefore we have the greatest ability to adapt. I get so frustrated talking about this stuff, because -- as the mayor of Realville -- and none of these people live there, and none of them understand the concept, they are trying to manufacture all these phony, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roller circumstances they want people to believe that they can't document, can't support, can't prove. And really, it's all for the purpose of advancing their political beliefs. All of this is political. They just want a bigger government. They want more power over you. They want to be able to tell you how to live. They want dibs on your money. That's all this is. This stuff is nothing more than an avenue toward their political dreams being realized, pure and simple.
RUSH: Jerry in Central California. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Good morning. Good to be here.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. Nice to have you here with us.
CALLER: Thank you. I would like to bring up something that Obama's done that most people don't realize, and that is, he has helped privatize the Social Security. That 2% tax that used to be going to Social Security I get to keep. I'm putting it in my 401(k). And that's exactly what George Bush had in mind when he tried to partially privatize --
RUSH: Well, you know, it's pretty close. It's pretty close. How much are you socking away every month in your 401(k)?
CALLER: Oh, I don't know, six or eight percent, something like that.
RUSH: Wait, wait. Six or eight percent of what?
CALLER: My wages.
RUSH: Okay. But you're calculating what your FICA deduction would be without the Social Security or the payroll tax cut, right?
CALLER: Correct. When they quit withholding that 2% I just transferred that and increased my 401(k) by that 2%.
RUSH: All right. So you're taking the payroll tax cut and basically doing your own privatized Social Security account alongside your government account, and your point, it's exactly what Bush wanted to do --
RUSH: -- and everybody raised holy heck about.
CALLER: Yeah, we have to do this because the less money you put into Social Security, especially when you're pushing 60, the less you get back. So he's cutting our benefits by cutting that tax.
RUSH: See, that's the dirty little secret that nobody's talking about. Again, mayor of Realville, things are so simple, they're impossible to understand. That's our town motto. Things are so simple, it's hard to understand. Okay, Obama is touting everybody in government, touting the payroll tax cut, big whoop, yip yip yip yip yahoo. We want you to have more money in your pocket. We care about you. And they argue about it every time that it's about to expire, gotta extend it, payroll tax cut, two things. There is only one way that the Social Security trust fund is funded, and that's with the payroll tax. Pure and simple.
Now, this is not counting whatever money is printed or borrowed to pay benefits for which there actually isn't money in the bank. We have reached that point now with Social Security, or we're very close. But the point is here's Obama and the Democrats touting the payroll tax cut. But I thought all of my life it was the Republicans who wanted to cut your Social Security, because with this payroll tax cut, Obama is cutting Social Security. So is everybody that signs onto it. Every Republican, every Democrat that signs onto the payroll tax cut is cutting Social Security. Now, my entire adult life I have heard every election the Democrats say Republicans want to kick old people out of their houses, reduce their benefits, cut their Social Security. You've heard the old stories, have to eat dog food, whatever.
Well, now it's actually happening. Because as you grow older, you are putting less money into the Social Security system because of the payroll tax cut. And old Jere here is right. When you reach your retirement age and it's time for you to start collecting benefits, guess what? The government isn't going to have to pay you as much because you haven't been paying as much in. This is a dirty little secret that nobody's talking about. Social Security is in heap big trouble. Little Elizabeth Warren lingo there. Heap big trouble. And it has been for a long time. You remember all the times we've had to say it, quote, unquote. Well, the payroll tax cut, with the current-day benefit, politicians claiming they're giving you a tax cut, is a big plus for them, but down the road, what they've actually been figuring on is a way for Social Security to have to pay out less when people retire, and this is how they're doing it. 'Cause old Jere here's exactly right. The less that is taken from you, the less that is deducted because of the payroll tax cut, the smaller your Soc. Security is gonna be when your retirement age hits. You have been warned.