heh, wish I heard this live. Interesting.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042211/content/01125110.guest.html 

RUSH: Kalamazoo, Michigan, next on Open Line Friday. Remember no rules: You get to talk about whatever you want to talk about on Friday. Doesn't have to be anything I care about. Fred, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Hey, thank you, Rush. Thanks for taking my call from WKMI in Kalamazoo. What my comment is is that I think that capitalism is no more than a form of slavery; that entrepreneurs are the ones that create jobs, and once they get to a point of being millionaires or multimillionaires they withdraw from the economy. So there is no... There's no... The tax breaks that millionaires get, there is no growth in that. The only growth they do is anywhere in their pocketbooks. Entrepreneurs, actually, create these jobs.

RUSH: Wait a minute. I want to walk through this. I want you to walk me through the stages of this that you believe. First off, when you say that capitalism... Creates slaves, is that what you said?

CALLER: Yes, that's correct.

RUSH: A form of slavery?

CALLER: Yep, it's a form of slavery.

RUSH: Okay, entrepreneurs start out, they create jobs. But then at some point they become millionaires, then what happens?

CALLER: Then they start withdrawing from the economy. There's no more growth in job growth, so giving multimillionaires a break --

RUSH: Give me an example, because I need one. Really, now, I don't understand. Entrepreneur A starts a widget business?

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: After a certain amount of time the widget business makes him a millionaire, and then what does he do?

CALLER: Then it becomes...starts to become Self. They get absorbed in themselves and then they -- instead of thinking about the company or the organization, they -- start thinking about Self, and when you start thinking about Self, there's no more growth.

RUSH: No.

CALLER: So we can throw tax breaks at millionaires and billionaires all we want and there's not even a trickle-down economics to go along with it.

RUSH: Oh, but there is! Where does the millionaire put his money?

CALLER: Stock market.

RUSH: Puts it...

CALLER: For growth.

RUSH: Well, stock market, bank, he puts it in a lot of places. What happens to it there?

CALLER: That money is supposed to be sent down to the widget guy, but it's not working.

RUSH: You mean the employee? You mean the employee?

CALLER: No, to the widget business, but the widget business, the guy that the entrepreneur...

RUSH: Well, the widget business is still operating even though the millionaire guy has... Does he just shut down the widget business -- I'm trying to understand -- and fire all the employees after he becomes a millionaire?

CALLER: No. He just doesn't grow the business anymore. He's got what he wants.

RUSH: So all he was out for was the money and when he gets the money he just shuts the business down and puts all those people on the unemployment line?

CALLER: No, no. He becomes Self. I didn't say the widget business went out of business.

RUSH: Well, then --

CALLER: He'll still run it, it just doesn't grow anymore, and then --

RUSH: Well, can you give me an example of this? Company name. Give me an example of a company name.
CALLER: Okay, a company name would be Am Fab. (bursts out laughing) Am Fab was a local overbed maker in town.

RUSH: What was the name of the company?

CALLER: Am Fab. A-m F-a-b.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: It was owned by the Bissell Corporation. We made overbed tables all over the country -- United States, local -- and we had decent profit going. We had decent medical benefits --

RUSH: I see now.

CALLER: -- and eventually to get the to a point where --

RUSH: I see.

CALLER: -- the 10% margin that the company -- that the owner -- wanted to make, he no longer considered that enough and took the company and took it overseas, basically.

RUSH: What is wrong...?

CALLER: That's how I feel about it.

RUSH: What is wrong with a company not growing? I don't agree with any aspect of your premise, but I just gotta ask: What's wrong with a company not growing? It's still employing people; it still has value. There are people still employed and earning money.

CALLER: Right, but while the cost of living's going up, he sold his people down so that way self can be self-absorbed. He gets to be fulfilled, but his employees don't.

RUSH: I don't... Where did you learn this? This is the most... I have yet to hear this. This is the first time I have heard this explanation of capitalism and rich people and why they're really evil: Once they get what they want, they quit and their employees just die.

CALLER: It just levels off, Rush, and it's unnatural.

RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. This is the point. It doesn't!

CALLER: Yep.

RUSH: Companies continue to grow. They are sometimes bought up by other companies. Others go out of business because they fail for whatever reason, but nothing is static! Everything about capitalism is dynamic!

CALLER: No. Everything was -- if everything was capitalist --

RUSH: Stagnation only occurs in socialism.

CALLER: No.

RUSH: Stagnation only occurs in liberalism. Stagnation only occurs where entrepreneurism is not allowed!

CALLER: Well, if you're saying that --

RUSH: Where did you learn this? This is pathetic.

CALLER: -- you're basing that on the socialism model --

RUSH: You are wounding me.

CALLER: -- there's no cost of living in socialism. If you add cost of living into capitalism, it's no more than slavery.

RUSH: Oh, come on! You sound like Spike Lee who claims that LeBron James was a victim of slavery when he left the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat for $15 million.

CALLER: No, he was a free agent.

Caller gone, Rush defends by himself.

So this caller dribbled for 5 minutes......Your point is???????????????



Ron

It's right there in the post there Ron.

I found it an interesting conversation, thought I'd share.

So there is no point? Just checking.

So my takeaway is the caller walked into someone's privately held business, asked for, and accepted, a job. (I'm pretty sure "slave traders" didn't drag him in there in chains).

In exchange for whatever he did for this guy, he received good pay and good benefits.

Later, the guy who took all the financial risk, decided he wanted to do something else with a portion of HIS business.

And so this caller, who is now bitter because he can't find a similar situation, lines up the dominoes in his circus brain to extrapolate that Capitalism is slavery

Have I got that about right?

And some number of days, weeks or months from now, when someone else offers him a similar "slave" job with good pay and good benefits, I'm sure he'll willingly enslave himself again.

Once again, those who can, do. Those who can't (or won't), sit around, bitch about those who do, and wait for the government to pay their bills.

:-({|=

WTF?? Fuzz, you really should have stuck to your promise and stayed off the Political forums. This is the most incoherent post from you yet and that's saying something. I am starting to see by reading yours and other libs post however that you all are just truly in a dimension all your own which is not a complement.

Let me see if I can help. What Rush is basically saying (and this is hard for libs to understand) is that regardless of what that owner does after HE starts a biz, after HE takes all the risk, after HE stays up late nights workign his ass off it doesn't really make a shiit what he does. See Fuzz, in the real world nothing is a guarantee. If the employees don't like what the owner does with HIS biz then they have options. Go work elsewhere, start their own business and compete with him or even knock him out of biz and then they can do all those sweet little Lib things you believe in. I know you get non of this but I felt like typing today.

(or leave the workforce completely)

I found it very difficult to get a handle on the rambling caller's point by reading a transcript,and I'm not especially concerned with the weird stuff that goes on between fuzz and several others on these boards, but I think the caller lost his point when he dragged slavery into it. Obviously candidates applying for and getting jobs are not slaves...it's beyond idiotic to discuss further.

somewhere buried early in the dialog is what possibly seems to be the caller's point, right or wrong, and that may be worth some tax/economy philosophical discussion. He lost his focus but started to say that if an entrepreneur achieves his goal of wealth (that would be my goal too) and decides to stop "growing" his business, then giving him tax breaks will no longer have the desired result of stimulating the economy nor create new jobs...which is what the tax breaks are supposed to do. I think that is what he tried to say when he kept stammering about withdrawing from the economy.

Hey Fuzz....Are you Rickamaven's twin sister?

I could see how the caller can see slavery in Capitalism...

He risks nothing
works a few hours... gets a break... Works a few hours... Gets a lunch... Works a few hours.... Gets a break... Works a few hours... Goes home....
GETS PAYED FOR THE WORK HE DOES
When he leaves work, he leaves work at work
Vacations, retirement funds, medical bennies....

Rough life...


See, there are basically three types of people... The ones with the drive to get what they want, the ones happy with their lives and content with what they have, and those that are too lazy to go get what they want....

Now, there is nothing wrong with the first two... If I understand things correctly Fuzz, your household has an example of the first two... Your wife has the drive to be a go getter, and that allows you to stay home... You seem pretty satisfied with this situation, and content with your life... Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all!!!

Who is it that we hear the most from?????? Yep, those TOO LAZY to go get what they want.... Get off your ass and build a widget and show this slave driver how it is done!!!! If you don't want to do that, STFU!!!!!

.



INCOME REDISTRIBUTION



NOW !

Fuzzy redistributes his wifes wealth.

Yeah, the caller used inflammatory language in an attempt to make his point, which didn't work. The main point is exactly what described and a good one. It makes the case that tax breaks or incentives shouldn't go to those who have the wealth and rarely if ever use that wealth to create new jobs, but to the entrepreneurs who do.

There are way more than three types of people. There are also people who for one reason or another not physically able to work full time, and many other situations. In my case we decided it was in the best interest of our children for one parent to be there for them full time, rather than a nanny or after care. We are very fortunate to be able to do this because it has worked out for us and the kids in measurable ways and my wife is still home by 4:30-5:00 nearly every day, so there is much family time. If I were to work also, I would probably be working in NYC and not get home until 7-8 and not only would I not live as long, I would not be as happy. We could buy more things, but you are right, I do not need a lot of 'things'. In our case it was best for everyone if I was the one who stayed home for a number of reasons I will not go into here.

Categorizing it as lazy is simplistic and not accurate because the stay at home parent does work hard with the children if they are doing the job correctly.

Okay, you are right... There are people that cannot work for whatever reason... I wasn't thinking about them...

I see nothing wrong with you staying home!!! I myself would not be able to do it... I am one who needs to be doing something constantly... I can't sit still for long!!! LOL

I hope you didn't think I was referring to you as lazy... Not at all...

Those I was referring to are the ones that complain about how hard life is, and it is always someone else fault they are broke, or not where they want to be in life... You have to admit, if they stay down, it is because THEY aren't making the effort...

I don't think I will admit to that, sure there are some who just like to blame others for everything or the system instead of making things work for themselves, but it certainly isn't everyone in that situation. With capitalism, by definition, there are winners and there are losers. Just because someone is poor, does not mean they are lazy or not making an effort.

Every person in this country has the opportunity to succeed....

The good, old, philosophical notion of the "American Dream"?
Depends what you mean and how you define it...

Opportunity? Maybe. Ability, desire, luck (always a bit of a factor), timing, skill, equal chance and capital, maybe not so much.

And as Robert said, depends what you mean by success. There are millions of working poor who didn't starve to death today, that could be classified by some as a success, they're still living, but I wouldn't.