Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: I want you to hear Jay Carney. White House press secretary at the White House daily briefing today. The AP correspondent, a guy named Ben Feller said, “The president said at the Business Roundtable recently that the Republicans need to reach a conceptual breakthrough on rates going up. Does he feel he has that now that Speaker Boehner is talking about rates?” So here we have a question about the fiscal cliff. We have a question about whether or not the president feels better about Boehner agreeing to raise income tax rates on the rich. That’s the question. Does the president feel like we can maybe make some ground here, we can cover some ground, maybe get to an agreement. Here’s the answer.

CARNEY: The president’s insistence that rates need to go up on the top 2% was based on an economic reality, which is that in order to achieve a broad deficit reduction package that puts our economy on a sustainable fiscal path in the future, a certain level of revenue gleaned from the wealthy has to be met. The balance is important because a plan that does not have it puts unduly the burden on senior citizens or on middle class Americans or on parents with disabled children.

RUSH: Parents with disabled children now get thrown into the mix. I wonder why? So now we have to raise taxes on the rich for a new reason, so that there is not an undue tax burden on parents with disabled children, which would include mentally disabled, which is meant to mean Adam Lanza-type children. So Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, has just sought to persuade the necessity of raising taxes on the rich so as not to further burden parents with disabled children. You don’t think they’re politicizing this, huh? That’s pretty brazen. That’s pretty blatant.

By the way, all this is BS, too, because the amount of money that would be raised with the tax increase on the rich would run the government for 11 days. This is not about revenue. It’s not about balancing the budget. It’s not about balance. It’s not about fairness. It’s not about anything that they’re saying it’s about. It’s about getting even. It is about fixing the unjust and immoral way this country was founded. That’s what this is all about. We’ve had 230 years of unfairness, unjustness. We’ve had 230 years of a stacked, rigged game and deck, and it’s gonna take much more than four years to fix it. And the first thing we’ve gotta do is make sure the people who have benefited unfairly from this rigged game of 230 years ago, the rich, have it taken away from them, which is now the top 2%.

So the press secretary has basically lied here, said in order to achieve broad deficit reduction that puts our economy on a sustainable fiscal path, gotta have tax increases the rich. There is no way that raising taxes on the top 2% will put us on a sustainable fiscal path in the future and there’s no way that raising taxes on the rich will mean a penny to deficit reduction. Not when the amount of money we’re talking about funds the government, at best, for 11 days.

Now, Speaker Boehner just offered $450 billion more with his millionaire tax. That’s half of what the tax on those over $200,000 would bring in, $820 billion. It’s a killer difference. So Boehner’s moving, and you know what the White House is saying? Not good enough. Not good enough. Because Boehner keeps insisting on spending cuts. But the White House and the media and the Democrats are saying, “You know what? This argument’s now over and we’ve won because the Republicans have now agreed to raise taxes on the rich, raise the rates, and there’s no way they can take that back now.” That’s the theory. Boehner’s offered it. So it’s officially forever now part of the Republican offer. But Boehner has to come up with more.

The White House is not satisfied. So the White House thinks they’ve got a permanent concession on raising rates on the rich, even though they rejected this specific offer from Boehner. So now Boehner has agreed in principle on every point Obama is demanding, and it has still been rejected. What does that tell you, ladies and gentlemen? Every fundamental point Boehner has agreed to in principle.

He’s agreed on ending tax deductions for the rich, raising the rates on the rich, and raising the debt limit. He has agreed, in principle, on every point, and it’s been rejected. What’s that tell you? What’s it tell you, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) Well, of course. (laughing) We’ve been screwed ever since the election. (interruption) It means Obama wants to go over the cliff. It means Obama doesn’t want a deal.

It means Obama does not want to avert the cliff, unless he can get capitulations he never dreamed of. But I think going over the cliff, like I’ve been saying, is just what he wants. I mean, that’s nirvana! That’s utopia. We go over the cliff, and everybody’s taxes go up, and the Republicans get the blame. Then Obama gets to come along within a couple of weeks and propose lowering taxes on the middle class.

Thus stealing the tax cut issue from the Republicans, after having made the Republicans essentially admit that tax cuts caused the problem. Tax cuts on the rich caused all of these problems. Boehner’s essentially conceded that. Here comes Obama as the savior for 98% of the people where the Republicans wouldn’t agree. That’s the benefit to going over the cliff, and there’s a little cherry on top of this. You go over the cliff and there are also some pretty steep defense budget cuts.

Guess who will put those back?


He’ll propose cutting taxes on the middle class and increasing spending on defense, and thereby take everything the Republican Party is known for away from it and co-opt it as his idea, the Democrat Party’s idea. That’s the value in going over the cliff. But, as you heard Carney say: If we don’t raise these rates on the rich — if Boehner doesn’t concede even more — then that means there’s going to be a tax burden on middle-class families with disabled children.

I mean, this is shameless.


This is just over-the-top-shameless.


RUSH: Let me spell it out for you, what Jay Carney said. If we don’t raise taxes on the rich, a lot — if we don’t really raise rates on the rich — then we’re gonna have more and more Adam Lanzas, because we’re gonna be putting a tax burden on middle-class families with disabled children. Now, to this day, at this point — December 17th — “disabled children” means “Adam Lanza.” It means “Newtown, Connecticut.”


RUSH: Jay Carney, the White House spokeskid, has said that President Obama stands by his tax rate increase for the top 2% starting at $250,000 and above. Boehner offered all of that to $1 million and above. Obama will not take “yes” for an answer. He’s insisting on the rates going up on the top 2%, over $250,000 a year.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This