March 24, 2020 - Dennis Prager Show
06:43
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| And his piece is up today at USA Today, and Real Clear Politics chose it. | |
| It is very depressing, to be honest. | |
| What the Democrats, what the left is trying to do with people suffering is to get all of their other ideas, including changing the way we engage in elections, including the way boards of directors are chosen at companies. | |
| Including the carbon footprint of airlines. | |
| All of this is in there. | |
| And then the assumption, as Jim Robbins said, is the president would veto it. | |
| And they could say, see, he's not helping out Americans. | |
| So you were saying about their argument that he's bailing out billionaires. | |
| You want to continue on that? | |
| Sure. | |
| They're saying this is why they're resisting, quote-unquote. | |
| But point one, that doesn't justify them throwing in all these benefits for their core constituencies, regardless of whether their argument is right or not. | |
| But the second thing is, in all of these huge crisis bills that we've seen over the years, the Obama stimulus or the bank bailout or whatever, You have to accept the fact that when the government is giving away trillions of dollars, some people are going to gain from that in a way they shouldn't. | |
| I mean, that is just the price we pay for having a government that does these things. | |
| I'm not for it. | |
| And, I mean, the president's not for it either. | |
| He came out very strongly against stock buybacks, for example. | |
| And I'm sure he would be against wealthy people giving themselves big bonuses based on this money. | |
| I mean, there should be some restriction on that. | |
| And so if the Democrats were suggesting, hey, let's restrict these things, great. | |
| I think everybody could go along with that. | |
| But instead, their response has been, well, if you're going to, you know, quote-unquote, give money to billionaires, then we're just going to give a bunch of stuff to our people. | |
| So right now, what is the state of things? | |
| Does the Senate—so let's say the House passes this bill. | |
| Then what happens? | |
| Well, at some point, the House and Senate have to reconcile. | |
| They have to come up with a bill that they're going to send up to the president. | |
| And, I mean, the House could move forward on its piece of garbage, and the Senate could move forward on whatever it's doing, although that process was shut down by this. | |
| And if they come up with something in the reconciliation process... | |
| If it looks halfway decent, maybe the president can sign it. | |
| But if it contains all of this extraneous junk, then I would doubt it. | |
| Now, hopefully they could, like, split it. | |
| Maybe you split off some of these not-so-important parts and then leave the important parts in a separate bill. | |
| That would be useful because that would really be a test of the other thing, to see if it actually has legs, which it doesn't, and allow the president to move us forward. | |
| But I really think the bottom line of this is that President Trump can call for people to come together and not fall for these tricks. | |
| And I think he emerges from this looking better because he's the only one trying to get this thing under control. | |
| Right, but he has an entire American media virtually. | |
| Depicting the Democrats as the angels and him as the devil. | |
| Oh, yeah. | |
| The New York Times had to change some headlines again because they correctly reported that it was Democrats in the Senate who had blocked everything and then had a headline reflecting that. | |
| Then they had to change it to the partisan divide is what's stopping things. | |
| Because, you know, I suppose the progressive readers of the Times called the editors and said, how dare you, you know, report accurately. | |
| That's very important that they had to change their headline. | |
| I know I saw that headline and I thought, it's almost like, and obviously I'm not comparing it as equals, but it would be, just to show how the absurdity, is a partisan divide after Pearl Harbor. | |
| There was a partisan divide in War X or War Y. I mean, normally one party is responsible for a war. | |
| And that's what the New York Times reported originally. | |
| So, I don't like asking prognoses, but I will nevertheless. | |
| I believe the Democrats are prepared to see ruin because they are the heirs of Lenin's view that to make omelets you have to break eggs. | |
| So I do believe that Nancy Pelosi would be okay with vast numbers of Americans out of work if she can't get her left-wing agenda through. | |
| Am I too harsh? | |
| No, I don't think you're too harsh. | |
| I think they're willing to let this whole thing burn, you know? | |
| They're willing to let people lose their jobs, let companies go out of business and let people die, you know, rather than bend a little bit. | |
| Yeah. | |
| So there may be no bill. | |
| Well, there's going to be something. | |
| I mean, at the end of the day, there has to be. | |
| I doubt, I seriously doubt it would include many of these crazy... | |
| Well, you know, the Republicans should make clear it would be as if they passed a bill in the Senate, because that's where they have the majority. | |
| Well, they can't get 60 votes. | |
| But it would be as if the Republicans' bill included and no funding for abortions. | |
| Right. | |
| How would the press react to that? | |
| Oh, it'd be, you know, how dare the Republicans exploit this crisis for their narrow, radical agenda. | |
| It's really... | |
| Okay. | |
| All right, my friend. | |
| You do a really important work, and it's a pleasure to know you. | |
| Thanks, Dennis. | |
| Likewise. |
Export Selection