All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
October 18, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across.
And a fruited plane, Rush Limbaugh back, sitting firmly behind the golden EIB microphone, this here at the prestigious Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, I got a couple of emails I was checking here during the break from people who say, oh, no, Rush, don't get in a war with conservative bloggers.
If the media rips you guys to part, it's all over.
I am not at war with conservative bloggers.
I quote countless posts from many blogs on this program.
I use them as a resource.
I'm referring to one blog post.
And I don't even know who it is.
This all got started when I cringed when I saw the use of the term pre-mortem on a blog site called Instapundit.
And it was, it just, it, it hurt me.
It irritated me as much as when Tom Davis, congressman from Virginia, goes on to meet the press and starts speculating, Bob Schaefer, whatever it was, and starts counting up the number of seats his party is going to lose.
I watch it and I say, well, that's really helpful.
I don't see the Democrats out there, even when they know they're going to lose, talking about how bad it's going to be and how many seats are going to lose.
I just don't see it.
I've been in this game a long time and I've played a lot of competitive sports and I've worked for competitive sports teams professionally and I've never seen anybody want to lose as a means of advancing.
Mets didn't want to lose last night.
Oh, come on, Rush.
It's a flawed analogy.
No, it's not.
But I'm talking about one blog here, and it's not even Instapundit.
Whoever Instapundit is, is letting somebody else reply to whatever it was I'm saying on the program.
And it's a little one-page post that I responded to this morning in the first hour.
I'm going to tell you the blogs that I regularly read in my RSS Reader.
I've communicated with many of the people who run them.
Some of them are fabulous people, starting with National Review Online, then Hugh Hewitt and his town hall blog.
Captain Ed, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, the three lawyers at Powerline.
These are resources that I have added to everything else that I use for show prep, which makes show prep an ongoing, never-ending thing.
Red State is another site.
Little green footballs.
I don't want to leave it.
AJ Strata, a stratosphere.
I don't want to leave anybody out here.
American Spectator.
And you hear me talking about this.
I'm referring to one post.
Well, two days' worth of posts on this one site.
But the bottom line here is, is that what I'm trying to do, and even though it may sound insulting to some people, I'm trying to unite for the purposes of issues and principles and causes in which I believe.
I may fail, but I'm giving it my best shot here.
But I'm not going to sit around and see posts that mischaracterize what I'm saying and don't even understand about whom I'm saying it or advance ideas that I think are harmful without reacting to it.
This is a product of growth of the conservative movement.
And I have, again, not to sound like a broken record, but all the ideas and all the issues, All of the substantive things to move this country forward are being debated on the right in this country.
You cannot find similar debates on the left.
All you can find is hate.
All you can find is delirious, delusional, lunatic, first stages of madness, hate.
And I do not understand why when you're gazing out over the political spectrum and you want to teach somebody a lesson, you were able to ignore the left and what they've been doing and saying and the way they've been trying to undermine the country, undermine this nation's national security, undermine it with every tool they have at their disposal, the ACLU, the court system, you name it.
How you can ignore that and take out anger on your own side, which in the process puts representatives of these deranged, hateful kooks in office.
Sorry, I don't, you can talk to me from now to the election and tell me why it's a good idea, and I'm not falling for it.
I don't know that anybody can persuade me of this.
So hopefully this clears up any confusion that existed out there on the part of anybody who thought I was attacking the entire blogosphere.
Conservative movement is huge.
Everybody in it wants to matter.
There's an ongoing battle for who's more important than somebody else, who's leading it, and so forth.
Egos exist everywhere, including in movements.
And so, you know, I understand that.
That, frankly, is not my focus.
I'm too much of an outsider to ever be a leader of anything in terms of the club.
And it's not even a desire that I have.
Found to switch gears here.
I found something fascinating at Forbes.com.
Story by Tom Van Riper.
How many of you remain perplexed over the apparent attitude of many Americans as sour in the midst of a roaring and great economy?
I raise my hand.
I am one.
I do not understand it.
How we can have such a roaring and great economy and yet such ambivalence about it.
I can understand being upset at immigration and I can understand being upset about other things, but I don't understand why people think, if the polls are right, a majority of Americans think that Democrats would do better at the economy.
You give them half a chance to get him in power and the Bush tax cuts, which he wants to make permanent, will sunset in 2010.
And if you think allowing those tax cuts to end and expire doesn't amount to a tax increase, and you need to go take math class, where there's a story in the stack today that helping the self-esteem of math students did not improve their scores.
Being happy in math didn't mean diddly squat to their grades.
All that coming up.
The average American 1967 and today, Forbes took a stab at explaining why, in the midst of a pretty good economy, people aren't feeling it.
As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7.46 a.m. yesterday, according to the Census Bureau, the typical family, by the way, we have found out the name of the last name of the person that was the 300th, Clinton.
In fact, the 300 million, the 301st million, and the 302nd million all name Clinton.
Just kidding.
Bad joke.
Never mind.
Back to the Forbes story.
The typical family, as the U.S. population crosses 300 million, doing a lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.
Mr. and Mrs. Median Inc. annual income of $46,000 is 32% more than the mid-60s median income, even when adjusted for inflation.
It is 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985.
And thanks to ballooning real estate values, median household net worth has increased even faster.
The typical American household has a net worth of, this is just a median, $465,970 is the typical American household net worth today, up 83% from 1965, up 60% from 1985, and up 35% from 1995.
If you throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class not only better cars and TVs, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices.
And it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. median income are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents.
So why are they so unhappy?
Forbes' answer when we come back.
Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, another CI told you so.
North Korea has just informed the Chi Coms of its plan to conduct three more nuclear tests.
Our U.N. Ambassador John Bolton confirms the U.S. is now working on a new Security Council resolution that would impose additional sanctions on North Korea if they explode a second bomb.
Morning update yesterday was about that, about this, and I did it again during the program time yesterday.
We got these tough sanctions on them.
I can't get anything in there.
Nothing goes in, nothing goes out.
It's really, really tough.
I mean, we've really hammered on this.
Except there's a teeny winny clause in there that there is no military enforcement of the sanctions, and so there's basically no enforcement period.
So the North Koreans yesterday said this is a declaration of war.
They call up Hu Jintao, the president of the ShiComs, and says, hey, we got three more nukes we're going to light off in the near future.
What do we do?
All right.
We're going to really show them now.
We're going to go back and get more sanctions.
Okay.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
So why are people in the midst of such robust economic times so unhappy?
Yes, despite their material prosperity, the median incomes are a grumpy lot.
A Parade magazine survey performed by Mark Clements Research in April showed that 48% of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were.
Well, the Forbes article indicates it just ain't true.
In terms of median income, even adjusting for inflation, people are way ahead of their parents and grandparents at this point in life.
Net household worth, family worth, skyrocketing, much higher than it's ever been in history.
And yet, 48% of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were.
A June 2006 study by GFK Roper Group showed that 66% of Americans said that their personal situations in the good old days, defined by the bulk of respondents as anywhere between the 50s and 80s, were better than they are today.
And in May, a Pew Research Center poll showed that half of U.S. adults believe the current trends point toward their children's future being worse than their own present.
None of it's true.
It's the exact opposite.
There is more prosperity and opportunity.
The pie in this country has never been bigger than it is today.
And yet, people think we're going to hell on a handbasket.
Their lives are not nearly as filled with riches and quality and opportunity as their parents and grandparents.
Now, you can attribute some of this dissatisfaction to what Milton Friedman dubbed permanent income theory, which assumes that people measure where they are relative to where they expected to be a few years ago.
They don't care a bit what the average income was when their parents were around or their grandparents.
If you expect a 3% rise in income and you get 2.5%, you're disappointed, said Ken Goldstein, an economist at the conference board, a private research group in the Weiborg.
And because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others.
That, folks, a brief departure from the story for a moment of editorial comment by me.
Whether it is money or anything else, if you end up comparing yourself to others, you are always going to be miserable because you're always going to assume somebody else's grass is greener.
Natural.
Human nature to do this.
Everybody thinks that everybody else has it better than they do.
Because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others, the super success of the top 1% can make Mr. and Mrs. median income feel relatively poorer.
Take CEOs.
The $19 million that Walmart chief Lee Scott raked in last year was 410 times what Mr. and Mrs. made, Mr. and Mrs. median made, as opposed to the $469,000 a year earned by Exxon's Ken Jameson in 1975, which is a mere 40 times more.
It's the same with celebrity athletes.
Those who worship Joe Namath in the 60s could at least identify with the $142,000 a year he made, which is $848,000 today.
But how many can identify with the $87 million Tiger Woods took in last year?
And not only are the elite making much more today relative than the medians, the rise of cable TV and the internet assures that they know all about it.
It's now easy for us to see how other people around the world live, not just how our neighbors live, says Barry Schwartz, professor of psychology, Swarthmore College.
He also argues the plethora of consumer choices today, while generally a good thing, can be a catalyst for bringing people down.
Not everybody can have that new 60-inch flat screen.
Maybe they have to get a 40-inch.
So they envy the bigger one.
Size envy has always been with us, as you know.
The more options you look at, the more you have to give up, he says.
It's true that the wealthy have grabbed up a larger share of the growing economic pie over the last 40 years.
Census Bureau stats show that the percentage of pay collected by the middle 60% of wage earners has dipped to 46% in 2005 from 52% in both 65 and 75.
But the overall pie is much bigger, too.
A near quadrupling of the gross domestic products in 67 means that today's Americans share of 12, today's Americans share $12.5 trillion of wealth or $41,579 per capita compared to the $3.8 trillion or $18,000 per capita enjoyed by 200 million people back then.
Of course, the super rich have done even better.
But what does the pay of celebrities and CEOs have to do with the average American other than provide fodder for jealousy?
It'd be one thing if growing incomes at the top stretched prices of goods and services so much as dramatically push inflation ahead of everybody else.
But inflation has been tame for over two decades.
Would add that these super rich go out and they're the first ones that buy newly introduced products at these exorbitantly high prices, get the ball rolling, and that makes these 60-inch and 40-inch plasmas reduce in price over time so as to become affordable.
The point is that all the money these people are making is not resulting in inflation or higher prices for everybody else.
It's just the opposite.
The fact is that in real terms, the median incomes are doing great.
Mr. Median makes 25% more than his father did 30 years ago, even after holding for inflation.
Mrs. Median is a lot more likely to work in the professional ranks than her mom was and to be paid about three times as much for doing so.
And though she still makes only 77% of what her male counterparts earn, I would dispute that.
This is up from 33% in 1965.
They dote on the same number of children, too, but waited longer to have them until both careers are well underway.
They also pay less tax to the federal government and have 8% more purchasing power than they did 20 years ago.
But if despite their prosperity, the medians need some cheering up, there's one powerful person whose wage growth they have outpaced nicely over the last two generations.
When Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House, pulling the ears of his pet Beagles in 1965, he earned $100,000 a year, or 14 times what the medians earned.
This year, George W. Bush will earn $400,000 or just eight times the medians.
So Mr. and Mrs. Median income are catching up with the most powerful man in the world and his salary.
This is posted yesterday at Forbes.com, The Average American 67 and Today by Tom Van Riper.
And we will link to it on Rushland.
Well, there's a well, I think this covers a psychological reasons.
Obviously, he didn't get it, political reasons why people are unhappy.
But I mean, you have to factor in a constant negative drumbeat for the drive-by media on how rotten things are.
I mean, for crying out loud, folks, up until the past year, I mean, you may have forgotten, but the economy in this country was portrayed as having lost two, three million jobs, whatever, soup lines, your dad, yourself, one paycheck away from being homeless.
It was a constant, apocalyptic, never-ending drumbeat.
And then when the gas price went, whoa, it was really going to be over.
There's no question that that is still a factor.
But it still is interesting with economic times and job security as relatively solid as it is, why it doesn't overcome the constant drumbeat of negativity from the Drive-ByMeat and the Democrats who are constantly in campaign mode.
At any rate, people have been waiting patiently to appear on this program on the phone, so we'll get to those calls right after this break sit-tight.
As promised, back to the phones, and we'll start in Orange County in New York.
John, welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush mega dittos from an 18-year student, man.
You are the best, and you keep me sane.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that very much.
You do the same for me, actually.
Well, that's great.
This whole thing, this whole election boils down to one word, attendance.
You know, one of those great philosophers, Woody Allen, once said, 90% of success is showing up.
And this is exactly, I mean, you got my thunder immediately.
This is exactly what the Democrats and the mainstream media are totally focused on.
They know that they could manipulate us and they could kind of swing us like a three-card Monty game.
I mean, they are really, really going for it unabashedly.
And, you know, it's guys like you and me locally who are trying to bring this out.
But, you know, unfortunately, a lot of the right-wing media is buying into this.
Well, some of them are.
You know, there's all kinds of explanations for this, and I've touched on most of them in the first hour.
Desire to be different, desire to stand out, desire not to be considered to be part of the club, part of the crowd, or an echo chamber to be independent.
Some people want to curry favor with the drive-by media to get respect and so forth.
I mean, the reasons run the gamut.
But there's no question that suppressing turnout is the primary objective of the Democratic Party and of the drive-by media.
And they're going to be doing it throughout the election for the next two and a half weeks.
They're going to continue to run stories and go out and try as hard as they can to find angry Christian conservatives who are fed up with the Foley scandal and they're going to stay home.
And they're going to make it look like those numbers are huge.
I'm not even certain the people they're finding are legitimate Christian conservatives.
I've seen enough shenanigans in the drive-by media blowing up a truck themselves, simulating a natural explosion on dateline.
I have seen CBS go out and go to military towns where there has been traditional support for the Marines and the Army.
And they go and they find one guy who lives in this town who thinks, it's bad.
Bush is wrong.
We've got to get out of Iraq.
The only guy in the town that thinks it.
And I find out that he appears on all these networks periodically and has for the last two years.
I forget his name now.
So if they're willing to do it in that sense, make no mistake that they'll search under every rock, go everywhere they can to find, and they want to go find that most hayseed, hickey-looking person they can who's wearing the dumbest looking hat and hadn't shaved in three weeks, maybe missing a tooth, to talk about how the Republicans have let him down and so forth and so on.
And there's no question this is part of the effort that is underway.
Speaking, the Foley thing is about that.
And our buddy Brian Ross has a new installment today in his media story, Penises 101.
After interviewing 40 congressional pages, FBI agents have yet to turn up any evidence of direct sexual contact between underage pages and former Congressman Mark Foley.
40 interviews.
Now, I told you yesterday, the Raleigh News and Observer has a story.
200 teachers have been charged essentially with pedophilia, the sexual abuse of students.
Now, I don't know what kind of resources are being applied there, but the resources given to this Foley thing, the FBI all over the country talking to people left and right, is a little bit out of proportion here to some of the actual sexual predation that's going on in this country.
Ben Stein has a great piece, The American Spectator today, and he talks about how the idea that there's sex among juveniles in this country, something new, is outrageous, that it's part of our pop culture now.
And to act like this is something astounding and outrageous and has never happened.
You draw the contrast with Gary Studs dies.
He's a hero.
In fact, there's a story today.
His husband doesn't qualify for his pension benefits or something.
And it's just totally unfair.
And yet the Foley story stands aside by itself as something unique and has never happened before.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post on the war path today against George Allen.
You know how they're doing it?
They've got this story.
Bood old Jim Webb, war hero, what a guy as Jim Webb will not talk about his personal valor and make it part of this campaign.
He's not going to do it.
And the Washington Post thinks that is just so heroic.
Why?
That is just so mature.
That's an example of what we need.
We don't need a bunch of people bragging about what they've done.
And yet, of course, when it comes to Senator McCain, he's lauded for talking about what all he did and how he survived as a prisoner of war.
It's clear that, I mean, the Washington Post is part of the web campaign as they attempt to destroy George Allen.
That's just the playing field that we're in.
This is another reason why we don't need to help him along.
Yet some people on our side are.
Let's move to San Diego.
Anthony, welcome to the EIB Network.
You're next.
Welcome to the program.
Megha Ditto's Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
Quick point.
These conservatives that decide to sit home thinking that if Republicans lose, they'll get the House back.
Well, it's really not that easy.
If you look at incumbency rates, can congressmen hold on to their seat, incumbent congressmen hold on to their seats nearly 85% of the time in reelection efforts.
Incumbent senators, I believe it's around 80% incumbents are re-elected.
And the point is, if 2004 was a high watermark of conservatives' participation in electoral politics, Michael Burrow estimated there are about 40 congressional districts held by Democrats that went for Bush.
Now, if this was a high watermark, why didn't these districts go Republican in terms of their congressmen?
And the reason is incumbency has a lot of power.
They have structural advantages.
They're able to raise money.
They have name recognition.
It is very difficult to get power back once you lose it.
Yes, yes.
But see, you are missing something key this year.
All of the old traditional rules no longer apply because the Democrats might win back the House.
So these standard historical traditions don't mean anything this year.
They don't mean anything.
Incumbency doesn't mean anything because the country hates Republicans.
The country hates Bush.
The country hates the war in Iraq.
The country hates the economy.
The country loves Democrats.
There is a national orgy and love affair going on between the people of the country and Democrats.
And it will reach fruition on Election Day.
And it's going to be so sweet and so pretty.
And this is what's guiding them.
See, incumbency doesn't count for anything.
In fact, let me tell you what's happened.
James Carville the other day, somewhere, advised the Democrats: you know what?
It's looking like we could take 50 seats out there.
I mean, it's looking really, really good for us.
We are short of money.
So we need to go bar some money out there and really load it up in these districts and say we can't win and go for broke.
And they did it.
The Democrat National Committee is going to go borrow $5 million dollars to pour into these very seats you're talking about, Anthony, the so-called incumbent safe seats, because the Democrats, they see a chance to grab it all.
50 seats in the House and maybe a two to three seat majority in the Senate.
What people reporting this don't talk about is why do they have to borrow it?
They don't have it.
if they have to borrow it.
And so if there is all of this enthusiasm, and if all of the people of this country hate Bush, and if all the people of this country hate Republicans, and if all the people of this country hate the war in Iraq, and if all the people of this country hate the economy, and if all the people of this country hate the fact that we're heading in the wrong direction.
Why do the Democrats have to borrow $5 million?
Back in just a second, my good buddy.
I knew I was going to do it.
I left out some blogger names that I routinely read.
One of them is Michelle Malkin, and she's just fabulous and extremely valuable, the American thinker, which I cite and quote on this program constantly.
And Debbie Schlussel, and I'm sure there are more that I not all of them are RSS.
Not all of them are in my RSS reader.
Some of them I have to go to look.
What are you shaking your head in there for, Snerdling?
What's the difference in bloggers and columnists?
Today, nothing.
The difference, back when there were columns, it used to be a big deal to be a newspaper columnist because there weren't many.
It used to be a big deal to be a TV anchor because there were only three.
It used to be a big deal to be a commentator on a Sunday show because there weren't many.
But now everybody is one.
You know, there's whether you're published on the internet, more people are reading the internet than their newspapers now.
I saw that the other day.
But, I mean, everybody in their uncle's a columnist.
Everybody's a columnist somewhere.
So the very nature that the whole pie has gotten bigger, there's, and it's, it used to be really tough to get a column.
I've talked to George Will about how he got his at the Washington Post.
Meg Greenfield, I think, read a couple of his pieces and suggested that he explore the possibility.
It took a while to get it done in the Washington Post Writers Group, which was the syndicate that he wrote for at the time.
But back then, when you were Scotty Reston of the New York Times or Anthony Lewis or Flora Lewis, I mean, you were big when you were in the New York Times because it was the Times, the Washington Post, now local, and then all these guys, some of them were syndicated, and they all had huge readership.
I think Cal Thomas is the biggest now.
I think Cal Thomas is in more newspapers than any other columnist, but you wouldn't know it because he's ignored by the drive-by media and so forth.
But I mean, there's so many of them now that it's not nearly as prestigious as it was.
So what defines them today is quality.
And whatever it is, why I've always said content, content, content is what will determine who and what acquires an audience.
Content, not where you are, but what you do.
Content, content, because where you are will take care of itself if your content is what it is.
Because those who are quote-unquote the biggest are going to want the best content, which is why quality and content, be it any kind of programming, is what determines who ends up with the widest appeal, widest audience, and the greatest opportunity to reach the largest number of people.
Now, is that not the answer you were looking for?
You look stunned in there.
What were you getting at with the difference between a blogger and a columnist?
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
No, she's got a...
In fact, Michelle Morgan, she has a column.
She's got two blogs.
She's got a blog called Hot Air, and she's got her personal blog.
And they're both excellent.
And she's one of the leading forces in the anti-illegal immigration movement out there in terms of informing people about it with specific details of outrages as they happen across the country and wherever, whatever customs station, port of entry, city, whatever.
She's made it her passion.
It's the best.
Get this.
We just talked about the Forbes story on why people are so unhappy despite robust economic times.
Well, here's a great illustration.
Just cleared the wire from Reuters.
New jobs are cause for relief for Republicans.
Now, that headline's a little misleading as to the content of the story.
In the struggling factory heartland of America, the prospect of a hiring spree brings out proud executives, ecstatic employees, and a lot of very relieved Republicans.
The announcement this month by diesel engine maker Commons Incorporated that 600 to 800 jobs would be created at its once decimated Columbus plant drew two U.S. congressmen and a state governor, Republicans all, to celebrate the success of drawing new jobs to their district.
Yeah, we still have challenges.
There are more people working today in America than ever before.
It's good news, said Representative Mike Sodrell, trailing Democrat Barron Hill in polls for the November 7th election.
That there are more Americans working now than ever before is not really much of an accomplishment, says Reuters.
There are more Americans, period, due to population growth.
But in the Rust Belt states of middle America, any job growth in an election year is reason to revel.
Now, these are the same bunch of people that couldn't wait to tell you how bad the economy was.
Oh, yeah, that recession that Bush caused by assuming office.
Yeah, just he gives it when he was inaugurated, the country was so depressed, we went into a depression or a recession, and we lost 2.2 million jobs.
And for the next three years, four, it's all we heard about.
There have been 6.6 million jobs created in, what is it, two years or three?
Two years?
Last two years, 6.0.
And now Reuters says, well, that's no big deal.
There are more Americans, period, due to job growth, the population growth.
Still, it's not yet clear whether the recovery of an economy devastated by factory closures in the wake of the 2001 recession will be enough to boost sagging Republican fortunes in districts across the U.S. heartlands.
Yep, not enough.
Still unclear, ladies and gentlemen.
John in St. Mary's, Kansas.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, John Cooney here.
Thanks for taking the call.
Great to talk to you, Rush, and your heads and tails over Bill O'Reilly because you dialogue with your callers.
Rush, can I say my brother's going under the knife?
Can I wish him well to do here?
In a couple of hours.
Napoleon Cooney in Hartford, Connecticut.
You're in our prayers and our rosaries, and we hope everything goes well.
Thank you.
We send along the same best wishes.
Thank you.
Appreciate that, Rush.
Rush, I'm a Pap Buchanan conservative, and I think he is the leader of the conservative movement still, not Newt Gingrich and not John McCain, who is not a conservative either.
My concern is the disaffection of people like me with the Republican Party is the globalism, the free trade in Topeka, Kansas.
Goodyear is ready to shut its doors.
It's on strike nationwide, and they're going to move two or three factories down to Mexico.
I don't see George Bush or any of the Democrats or Republicans on the national level talking about how NAFTA and GATT and free trade and WTO and the NAFTA superhighway are going to save our jobs.
You've been talking about jobs, but the question is, what kind of jobs are we creating?
We're taking $25 an hour Goodyear jobs and we're turning them to $10, $15 an hour.
Put the sneaker in the box and ship it around the country, pay less jobs.
Where are we going to get good paying jobs?
The globalism is killing us, and the Republicans and Democrats have pushed it, and that's why the country will be ready for a third party in two years.
I'm sad to say it.
I hope it's a conservative third party.
Well, not enough time here to deal with this in as much detail as I would like.
But first place, the economic statistics are not as dismal on the job side and the wage scale as you've made it out to be.
There's good news on the horizon.
Walmart in China is unionizing.
It's going to raise the prices of everything over there.
We're exporting liberalism.
China will become a less attractive market for the reasons that I just cited.
Globalism is here to stay.
There's no rolling back the clock on this.
I don't care what you do.
And finally, the purpose of a corporation is not to provide jobs.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
One more time.
Companies do not invest millions or billions in a business to create jobs just to pay people.
We will be back.
▲
Export Selection