Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Quick Hits Page

College Demands Construction Crew Remove "Sexist" Sign
RUSH:  "A construction crew working on the campus of Ohio’s Sinclair Community College was forced to halt work until it removed a 'Men Working' sign that was deemed 'sexist.'"  Hey, this is stuff that we joked about 20 years ago.  It's now reality.

Questions Surround $55M Program to Cut Violence in Chicago

RUSH: And I hold here, ladies and gentlemen, in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, a story from CNN which kind of illustrates the problem that we've got here. Here's the headline: "Questions Surround $55 Million Program to Cut Violence in Chicago." Now, I don't know what this story says. I haven't read it yet. I'll read some parts of it here in a minute. But I'm just gonna tell you that there's no way we're gonna cut violence by spending $55 million.

It's not a spending problem.

The idea that the answer to every problem in this country is to spend money on it is absurd. It's ludicrous. So what does this story say? "On a chilly afternoon this fall, teenagers across Chicago's South Side were busy at work, earning $8.75 an hour to hand out fliers with a message of non-violence. 'Our message that we're giving out today is about being healthy,' said 18-year-old Lucia Eloisa. 'One of the key pointers is about taking time to reflect and seek inner peace.'

"Eloisa's part-time job was paid for by an ambitious state-funded program to keep at-risk teenagers out of trouble. It pumped nearly $55 million into Chicago's toughest neighborhoods and three of its suburbs to stem unrelenting gang violence." Are you kidding me? We really think we're going to stop gang violence with fliers and pamphlets on "inner peace"? Well, somebody does.

Somebody in a position of responsibility in Chicago think so.

So here we go again.

Never are we allowed to look at the real issues that might actually lead to a solution to this program. We have to have our money taken from us. We have to have our taxes raised. We have to have our property taken away from us, so that liberals and Democrats can throw our money at an issue and made it look like the issue is being dealt with. They need our money to make themselves look like they care.

And "caring" is all a liberal has to do.

A liberal never has to solve a problem.

A conservative in this culture must solve the problem or he or she is worthless. A liberal doesn't have to solve jack anything! All the liberal has to do is care, and it's very cheap for a liberal to care. They take your money. They go print up some meaningless, ridiculous fliers on inner peace. They go out and hire some typical low-information voters that think they're really mattering and making a difference, and have 'em stand on the corner and pass out something asking gangbangers to "seek inner peace."

And then they say, "Problem solved. See, we care! We're good people."

We point out, "But you haven't solved anything."

"Well, we care! That's more than we can say about you. All you do is sit around and criticize. At least we care!"

And, a majority of Americans buys that. A majority of Americans who vote.

"Yep, they care."

"Well, is the way they're handling the problem fixing it?"

"Doesn't matter. They care; you don't. They care. You're making fun of what they're trying to."

"Damn right we are because it's silly! Why don't you go to Wall Street and hand out a flier to every hedge fund guy and ask him to stop what he's doing and instead seek inner peace, and see if it would work."

Nothing illustrates the liberals' penchant for "solving" a problem more than throwing money at it, and then not caring whether it solves the problem or not. This is a long article here at CNN, investigating a failed and expensive program voted on by politicians in Chicago, Illinois. They spent $55 million to cut violence. It didn't work, and everybody's scratching their heads. But at the end of the day they're also patting themselves on the back 'cause they care.

McCaskill Wonders When Obama's Gonna Start Working on Jobs
RUSH: Claire McCaskill, senator from Missouri, is wondering when Obama is gonna start working on the jobs.  Yeah, I've got it here in the Stack.  She's all bent out of shape.  She doesn't even know what this guy means and what he stands for.  Claire, he's not gonna work on jobs, he's not gonna work on the debt, and he's not gonna work on entitlements. That's why I said earlier, "I wonder how long it's gonna take for a whole bunch of Obama voters to start calling here saying they had no idea."  Now, I'm serious.  I'm serious.  I don't know how many it is. I'm curious about that, too.  How many people who voted for Obama are gonna end up calling here saying that this is not what they thought they were voting for?  We'll see.  Maybe none.  Low-information voters and all. 

Obama Rallying Low-Information Voters to Raise Taxes on Themselves
RUSH:  So Obama went to Twitter at two o'clock today to encourage low-information voters to support his plan to raise taxes $1.6 trillion.  His last tweet was: "Gotta go. Thx. Keep pressure on Congress. Call, email, tweet your Member & tell them what 2k means to you. Lets get it done."  Obama rallying his low-information voters to raise taxes on themselves.  They just don't know it. 

See, I Told You So: Fewer Smokers Means Higher Taxpayer Costs, Study Finds

RUSH: I love this one.  I have been predicting this, more than predicting it.  This is a story from Daniel Fisher at Forbes.  Here's the headline.  Tell me if you've heard this anywhere before.  "Fewer Smokers Means Higher Taxpayer Costs, Study Finds."  Where have we heard that, folks?  Where have we heard this notion that, okay, you raise taxes on cigarettes, you make cigarettes harder to buy, and you make it practically impossible to legally use them.  Nicotine's addictive, people that smoke cigarettes are addicted to them, so you want the money, and you take all the tax revenue from cigarette sales, tobacco sales, and you pay for children's health care plans, which is what we're doing.  A number of child health care plans are funded totally with cigarette sales taxes. 

I always thought that the day is going to come where, as you price the cigarettes out of popular affordability, and then even for people that can buy them, you can't smoke 'em legally anywhere, will result in fewer sales, and there will be, thus, less tax revenue, and then, at the end of this equation is less money for child health care programs.  This was so easy to spot.  Typical unintended consequence of stupid Democrats. 

Well, lo and behold: " A study detailed in the most recent New England Journal of Medicine confirms what opponents of tobacco litigation said all along -- the government makes money off of smokers, and could spend more if enough of them quit.  The argument was dismissed as ghoulish at the time."  I said smokers deserve medals.  Instead of looking at smokers with derision and contempt, we need to, all of us, love them.  We need to encourage them.  They are paying for child health care programs.  The sales tax revenue from their tobacco purchases are paying for the health care for your kid.  Why do you hate smokers?  You need to love them.  We need to give them medals.  And I said, as you price them out of the market you're gonna reduce the revenue and your health care plan is gonna suffer, and it has. 

"A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the financial impact of a 50-cent-per-pack increase in cigarette taxes shows that while cutting the number of smokers trims government outlays over the short run, the increased longevity and higher end-of-life expenses of non-smokers eventually would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more from Medicare and Social Security."  So it's a dual-edged killer.  Follow me on this.  As fewer people smoke there's fewer dollars, there's less revenue for health care programs.  As fewer people smoke, they live longer.  They don't die soon enough.  They live longer and they end up on Medicare and Social Security, which costs us even more.  So it kills finances twice. 

In other words, the survey data says let people smoke and let them die early and they'll put less pressure on health care costs, because there will be fewer people to care for 'cause they'll kill themselves with the smoke.  And at the same time, all that revenue will come in, you'll fund child health care programs.  Now what do we have?  We have less revenue coming in, the child health care programs are suffering, and the smokers that quit are living longer and becoming a financial burden to the rest of us.  Thanks to the unintended consequences.  All of this was utterly and totally predictable, and I did predict it.  Folks, it really gets frustrating watching this parade of utter stupidity march on unimpeded.  In fact, not only unimpeded, but aided and abetted by other stupidity. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: