Rush: There is no compromise with Obama

Rush replayed his monologue from yesterday on his radio show that was interrupted by many radio stations to air Obama’s press conference. And it was really, really good! He was inspired by a question from Jake Tapper yesterday in the press conference, asking Obama how much he would compromise on the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k – would he go up to 500K, or even 1 million?

It hit Rush that these class warfare arguments have so seeped into the American conscience now that even reporters are asking questions based on the argument. And here is his response.

Enjoy!

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    “Where does all this talk start?”

    Erm, how about Adam Smith?

    Nobody’s being “punished” for being successful, you’re being charged a higher percentage vis-a-vis your income as your income increases. Nobody wants to confiscate all of your money or create a “classless” society (70% of $300,000 is still a lot more than 90% of $30,000. As you can afford to pay more, it is reasonable to expect that you will pay a slightly greater proportion than those who are struggling to get by – and there are a number of super wealthy people that agree with that statement.

    The notion that this is in any way class warfare is completely idiotic. Rush Limbaugh should shut up and pay his damn taxes.

    • Red in Blue

      Why should those who earn more pay a higher percentage? Are they not receiving the same gov’t as those who make less?

      “As you can afford to pay more, it is reasonable to expect that you will pay a slightly greater proportion than those who are struggling to get by – and there are a number of super wealthy people that agree with that statement.”

      Why? That’s legalized theft. I’m sure there are super wealthy ppl that agree with that. If they agree, as they say they do, then, let them donate to charities and organizations. They don’t speak for the not so super wealthy or even the small business owner who can’t hire because of high taxation.
      It really seems like you are envious of those who have accomplished something.

      • Anonymous

        Going from memory,I think dmk is a socialist. Danny can correct me if I’m wrong. He believes that people that work for a living should have no more than someone sitting on their butt doing nothing. He thinks he is very intelligent, but he can’t understand that socialism only makes everyone poor. Some people try to be politically correct with socialists like Danny,but I’m not one of them. Socialists are more dangerous to this country than the Taliban.

        • Anonymous

          wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

          I’m definitely not a socialist, nor am I fully confident that you know what the term means.

          In no way have I ever suggested that people who work for a living should have no more than people who sit on their butt doing nothing. In fact, in the very post that this person was responding to, I made the point clear that modern systems of progressive taxation do not create a “classless society.” If you make 4 million dollars and you pay sixty percent of that in taxes (which is higher than I think anyone should have to pay), you could still buy and sell someone who makes $30,000 and doesn’t pay anything at all. There always has been, and always will be, a huge gap between the rich and the poor – that’s not something that I’m opposed to.

          Secondly, I believe quite firmly that someone like myself – young and able-bodied – should not be eligible for social services. If someone in my situation doesn’t want to work, that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect to get paid for doing nothing.

          • Anonymous

            It shouldn’t matter how much you make. If you earned more, you shouldn’t be punished for it. Do you believe in redistribution of wealth?

            Obama certainly does. One of the problems with the progressives is creating a system where the incentive is to lay around and do nothing. Why work harder or hire more workers if you will be punished for your hard work?
            I’m not young anymore and I know a lot of these lazy people. These are not people that worked and lost their job. Many of these have never held a job. There is no incentive to work when they would end up with less than being on welfare. One family gets 956 dollars in food stamps. Over 600 welfare check. The government pays all but 13 dollars per month of their rent. They abuse the Medicaid system by sending their children to emergency room for a dr excuse, since the parents will be arrested for allowing their children to skip school. One family was doing this 3-4 times per week and the same thing was happening by the other children in the housing project.

            One other problem is the earned income credit where people that didn’t earn enough to pay any tax can receive a big refund.

            Some of these people have been on welfare for 4 generations and have no intention of ever working. It’s not a matter of health. It’sj ust taking advantage of the system.

            I do agree with you that healthy people that won’t work shouldn’t get any help.

            Back to Medicaid fraud, it’s happening a lot and Obama wants to give them more. I stopped that one hospital from writing these phony excuses, but I’m only one person.

            • Anonymous

              As for your question regarding whether or not I believe in the redistribution of wealth, I think that it’s an overly reductive question with no simple answer. People like to parade around the notion that they’re against the “redistribution of wealth,” but I get the sense that nobody really thinks about everything that a statement like that would entail.

              Am I against the government deciding to take money from rich people and then give that money directly to poor people? Yes, I suppose so.

              But there are other ways in which taxation is redistributive that I don’t necessarily oppose. Because the distribution of wealth in this country is so heavily skewed towards the plutocratic (not a complaint, just a statement of fact. I do come from money, after all), in general the majority of the tax bill is footed by a relatively small segment of the population. Even if you introduced a flat percentage tax or brought in a VAT tax and eliminated all federal income taxes, this would remain true.

              Given that, you can say that pretty much anything the government decides to do for the public good is, in the most direct sense, redistributive. Look at the federal highway system (which, I think we can mostly agree, was a smart thing for us to do) – that was a public good created by shifting private wealth towards the national collective, and one that almost certainly would not have been created by private interests, given the huge capital investment that it would require and the low gains it would yield, at least at first.

              Or look at the national defense and military budget. Most of that is the government using tax dollars to purchase weaponry/technology/etc. from private businesses, which then benefits everyone down to the assembly line workers that help put that stuff together.

              Or look at the way federal aid money is distributed. Almost without exception, the states that put the most money (per capita) into the federal pot are northeastern and west coast states, and the states that receive the most federal aid money (per capita) are the comparatively poorer deep south states, plus Alaska. Is that not redistributional?

              As for the other things you’ve said, I will respond to them another time, because I have to go to class now and then I’m having a party at my apartment tonight (different time zone).

              • Anonymous

                The federal highway system and military benefits all of us and that is fair. Taking money from people that worked for it and giving to the lazy people benefits the lazy people is not fair. . Welfare wasn’t intended for cradle to grave assistance, but to help people through bad times. Welfare for so many people has become a family business. I’m all for helping anyone temporarily, but not forever.
                I’m not from money as you say you are and I just get by month to month. Do I feel that I should have a new car or best of everything my neighbors have.
                NO, because I didn’t work hard for it. I don’t deserve what they have. I didn’t earn it. I had the same opportunity they had but I wasted it.

    • Diamondback

      And that promotes the idea of equality of treatment how??? Please explain further.

    • Paladin

      Yea, and you should shut up and move to Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba or Venzuela or something.

    • Paulchri

      What social services are you on? Sounds like I am probably supporting you.

      • Paulchri

        Think maybe you could kick back some of that money? I am having a hard time paying bills.

        • Anonymous

          I work and I’m putting myself through school.

          nice try, asshole.

    • Jamesdawonwilson

      Wow… See I’m of the idea that I should probably pay more because I
      make less than $30,000 and looking at the military, police, firemen,
      roads, etc that I get for hue amount I pay is actually a pretty good
      deal.

      Here’s the problem with “as you make more, taxes go up”… It’s evil.
      Nobody would ever consider taking $5.30 from someone who only had $10.
      Why is it ok or “reasonable” to take $5.30 of every $10 from a person
      who makes $250K or more? If you make $249K, why not take more of your
      money? Why not $200K? $150K? $100K? $50K? I’ll tell you, compared to
      me right now $50K is rich?

      Lady justice is supposed to be blind. We are supposed to be a nation
      of laws, not individuals. What we need is one rate for everyone and
      the ones collecting that tax need to have a balanced budget.

      • Jamesdawonwilson

        Sorry for the typos…
        Paragraph 1 last line “for the amount I pay…”
        Paragraph 2 last line should be an explanation point, not a question mark

  • Anonymous

    “Where does all this talk start?”

    Erm, how about Adam Smith?

    Nobody’s being “punished” for being successful, you’re being charged a higher percentage vis-a-vis your income as your income increases. Nobody wants to confiscate all of your money or create a “classless” society (70% of $300,000 is still a lot more than 90% of $30,000. As you can afford to pay more, it is reasonable to expect that you will pay a slightly greater proportion than those who are struggling to get by – and there are a number of super wealthy people that agree with that statement.

    The notion that this is in any way class warfare is completely idiotic. Rush Limbaugh should shut up and pay his damn taxes.

  • Rush, as always, does a good job exposing the core of the issues….getting underneath all the flash and bang of political dialogue and illustrating the fundamentals of liberalism which is redistribution of money.

    Liberals see money as “everyone’s” (unless it’s their own) while conservatives understand that people’s earning are not property of the government first.

    It’s often forgotten, and we get carried away discussing the day to day politics, but it always boils down to the competing philosophies: The belief that others should pay for the stuff of those who have less, and the opposing belief that we are responsible for our own outcomes.

  • Bjandlj

    Tell it like it is Rush. Some don’t understand what this country was founded on. They were never taught anything by their parents as to why we are here. They are the unknown children that will be fooled by the propaganda of media that does not speak the truth.

  • truthseeker

    Hello, I am a student at college right now and I used to come to this sight alot to get my news.
    But this false left/right paradigm of this US government is sickening and I am sorry to say that Rush is part of it along with Newt, Bush, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Rothschild;) etc…
    Wake up people and visit the infowars.com
    P.S. if this gets through the screening of this website, I am thankful for the people running it, that they now the truth of whats really going on in this world.
    Bells God and his Son Jesus Christ

    • keep it on topic truthseeker. don’t troll.

      • truthseeker

        I am not trolling
        just trying to wake up your mindless following of this false left/right paradigm that you are subjecting this audience to.
        I used to love this sight. Now i see it as the Judas it truly is.
        Shame
        and btw i still love you
        God Bless

  • truthseeker

    Also check on Drudge Report
    Obama taking 34 Navy ships with him to India
    only with 3000 unidentified people and 400 staff
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1243237/pg1

  • Trudy Schoenheit

    Could someone here explain to me any and all of the following facts:
    -All other western democracies have higher taxes than the U.S. and between 5 and 8 of these (depending who’s numbers you use) have higher GDP per capita?
    -The U.S. leads in only government subsidized (wholly or mostly) undertakings: military, military hardware, agriculture, and basic science.
    -1/2 or all patents filed in the U.S. come from these other “socialist” countries
    -Why all the other western democracies have massively better education systems
    -Why a “socialist” paradise, Germany, is the most taxed an unionized country in the G20, yet it is the export, technology, and economic superpower it is
    -Why a tiny “socialist” country like Holland beats the US on all measures of development, dynamism, and happiness (no, it’s not the pot)
    -Why we couldn’t build or manufacture anything without help from all that private enterprise coming from all those “socialist” countries
    -And why all this was the other way around before Ronald Reagan took office and unions and taxes started their long decline here along with wages. The only thing that’s gone up is the distribution of wealth toward the top 1%.

    Apart from the internet (a govt subsidized creation), please start by citing where the U.S. leads in anything. Ideally, not demonstrably subsidized by the U.S. govt.

    Good luck.