All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:10
May 31, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I got everybody asking me.
I can't believe everybody is asking me, what is when they call you the Mandarin of Conservative Talk Radio, what does that mean?
Does that mean you're part Chinese?
Major Garrett called me the Mandarin of Talk Radio on a Fox report about immigration last dusted up with the White House.
Mandarin simply means in this context, all-powerful figure, ladies and gentlemen.
Look it up.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Rush Lindbaugh back and the EIB network and the fastest week in media rolls on.
Here we are already at Thursday.
It's great to have you with us.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com on the docket today.
Mrs. Clinton, I'm going to build on the morning update today, fabulously received by the audience, by the way.
One of the most powerful and hard-hitting morning updates in a long time.
That's saying something because they're all powerful and hard-hitting.
But this one struck a court, so we'll expand on it today.
Of course, we got the usual immigration stuff.
And we got a pretty good light-hearted stack.
You parents might want to start measuring the length of your kids' fingers out there.
I'll have details on this.
Finger length is relevant in a lot of things for children, and we'll have the details for you.
Big news out of Iraq.
I can't believe that this has not generated more discussion.
A ceasefire has been eyed, the headline says here, to stop the violence in Iraq.
And it's the bad guys who are interested in the ceasefire.
It's an Associated Press.
It's right here.
I got it off of Breitbart.com.
If you want to find out what the news is, you go to Breitbart.com.
I know it hasn't been out there.
It cleared this morning at 10.19 because I am on the case.
I see this stuff.
It hasn't been mentioned.
I'll tell you why, because the drive-bys and Harry Reid and Pelosi are busy trying to figure out how they're going to spin this.
I'll get to that in just a second.
But I got to share some of this.
The stupid news.
Los Angeles Times once wayward humpback whales appear to be home-free.
Now, we had this story yesterday, of course.
Snerdly, you weren't here is out washing the car.
The whales in the Sacramento Delta, San Joaquin Delta, gave the rescuers the slip.
They got out of there under the cover of darkness.
And yesterday morning, I'm sitting here doing show prep, and they got cameras trained out there at the Golden Gate Bridge trying to find the whales.
Nobody knows where they went, but they got out.
And the thing about this story that I just have to share with you, there's a quote here from some person named Spread.
Yeah, Trevor Spradlin.
Yeah, we're still holding our breath a little bit, but we're just so pleased.
Trevor Spradlin is a marine mammal biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, the federal agency that helped lead the rescue effort.
But of course, that's the agency that was befuddled and outsmarted by nature and the whales.
But listen to this guy's quote.
Armed with photos of the pair's distinctive tails, experts should be able to pick out the wayward duo as they migrate up the coast.
In the meantime, said Trevor Spradlin.
These whales have been fantastic ambassadors for the ocean.
Fantastic ambassadors for the ocean.
What?
They're a couple of animals.
They ended up in the wrong place.
They found their way out.
Now they're great ambassadors for the ocean.
You know, I marvel.
I just continue to marvel at the way people look at things.
And by the way, Nancy Pelosi upset with fellow traveler Hugo Chavez for shutting down that opposition TV station.
The speaker called on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to reconsider a shutdown of the country's most watched TV station, saying the move suppresses free speech.
Hey, Madam Speaker, what Hugo Chavez is doing by shutting down TV stations is no different than what you want to do with the fairness doctrine here in the country.
I mean, what a day when your fellow traveler like this gets out of line.
Wish she would have said as much when she went to visit Basher Assad.
She's embarrassed.
She's embarrassed.
Hugo Chavez has embarrassed her to death, makes them look bad.
Otherwise, why would she care?
All right.
U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about ceasefires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence.
A number two American commanders said today, that would be Lieutenant General Raymond Oderno, said he has authorized commanders to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders, and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts.
We are talking about ceasefires, maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.
O'Derno made this in a video conference in Baghdad, speaking to Pentagon reporters.
It's just the beginning.
We have a lot of work to do on this, but we've restructured ourselves to organize to work this issue.
Now, this is a huge, I mean, if you're talking about a ceasefire here, this is something that results from strength.
It is not something that results from weakness.
Now, I'll tell you what, the Democrats are going to say, I know how they're going to spend this.
They're going to spend this as we're bringing a statement from Dingi Harry, if they even refer to this.
And they may not, since the drive-bys are doing their best here to keep this news story sequestered.
But I think what Dingy Harry will say, well, this shows the weakness of the U.S. position.
We have to negotiate ceasefires with the enemy to stop our brave soldiers from being killed.
We can't defeat them, and this proves it.
That's what he'll say.
That's what they're trying to spin right now.
And then, of course, somebody might add, and of course, they will break the ceasefire.
Of course, Dingy Harry won't say that because our enemies are honorable.
We are not.
But if Dingi Harry does say something like this, he's going to further go down the road of being a pathetic laughing stock.
I mean, it's when you negotiate from strength, that's the road to victory.
And if they're going to reach out, I guess they already have reached out for a ceasefire to stop the violence in Iraq.
This is, I guarantee you, this is not our idea.
I mean, we're not the ones offering to ceasefire.
We're going to see if they want to, because apparently some signals have been sent from the bad guys that that is what they want to do.
Now, here's Major Garrett's soundbite.
This is from yesterday afternoon special report, Ritt Hume, last night, 6 o'clock.
Major Garrett reporting on immigration, President Bush versus Rush, which I don't think it was.
I know a lot of people took it personally.
I don't think the president had anybody personally in mind when he made his comments about conservatives not understanding what's going on here and being fed a bunch of emotion not based in facts.
The fact of the matter is, It's the pro-immigration bill bunch that will not debate this on facts.
They can't win on facts.
They can't win on the details of the bill.
They're not going to debate it in that regard.
And in the process, that's why they wanted to hustle this through without all the extracurricular politics under the cover of darkness.
So anyway, his report includes audio from me, from President Bush, and Tony Snow.
Rush Limbaugh, Mandarin of Conservative Talk Radio, said the immigration reform debate had broken the back of the president's loyalist base.
But there are people who are saying, I've had it.
I'm through defending the guy.
This is the last draw because he's attacking me here.
Bush appears to have infuriated conservative talk radio listeners when he said this yesterday, defending comprehensive immigration reform.
If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.
You can use it to frighten people.
The president also accused critics of throwing around generalities like amnesty to intensify political opposition.
If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill.
It's not an amnesty bill.
That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our fellow citizens.
At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow denied the president was trying to demonize GOP immigration reform critics.
He believes that finding a solution is what's right for America.
And no, there was no attempt to try to be cute.
The invited politicians at the event were Republicans.
The president is the leader of the Republican Party.
He is not picking a fight with the Republicans.
Limbaugh's listeners rendered just the opposite verdict.
But this criticism of his base is going to be problematic for him because the left is going to keep up their incessant harping on Iraq, and he needs people to support him on this.
He needs to have a base of support that will not waver.
Yes, that's a point that I made yesterday, that that's the sad thing about this is that he's going to continue to need support for whatever policy in Iraq continues to prevail.
And this, you know, I'm going to tell you, folks, it's been a long time since I have seen, and this is a good thing, by the way, it's been a long time since I have seen such a divide between the elected elite political class and the average, common, ordinary American.
And you common, average, ordinary Americans know who you are.
And I think it's good.
I think it's good that the people of this country understand just how insulated and removed from daily aspects of life some of these people are in terms of understanding what it is that your life is like on a daily basis.
And this is going to lead to good things down the road eventually.
You might look in the middle of things that you think are bad or tragic or horrible, but there's always good in everything that happens if you look for it.
And I don't think we're going to have to look very hard for this for the good that's occurring in this divide.
This will eventually, if it keeps up and that the emotional level remains peaked, and I think it will because the emotional reservoir is nowhere near running dry on this.
Elected officials are eventually going to have to come around quick on something at some point, usually as we near election time.
And people are going to be distrustful of that too, because if they wait that long to come around and be responsive on this, it's going to be too late.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Drive-by media is not talking about this either, ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, essentially admitted she wants to replace American society.
It is profound what she is admitting to out there.
And we've got a new little update theme song that we want to share with you before we get into Hillary news.
Take off on the Tammy Wynette tune.
Stood by my man here.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
After all, ladies and gentlemen, she did say that there are things worse than infidelity.
She actually said this.
This is a quote, it's time to replace American society.
Have you noticed the way Mrs. Clinton dressing lately?
She's wearing these Mao suits.
She looks like Chairman Mao out there.
She's wearing these jackets with the Mao collar.
So we call her Chairman Hillary here.
The smartest woman in the world, she says she made it abundantly clear that we have to replace the on-your-own society, which is the George Bush model, with her new model, we're all in it together society.
Because she says fairness doesn't just happen.
It requires the right governmental policies in order for fairness.
And see, fairness is one of these elusive concepts anyway, but to liberals, fairness is equality of outcomes.
They are obsessed with equality.
They are obsessed with everybody being the same.
Boys and girls are not different.
Multiculturalism is all about making sure that everybody, every religion is the same, every cultural custom is the same.
None is better than the other.
None is worse than the other, because they just will not make such judgments.
And so when Mrs. Clinton starts talking about fairness, that's a code word for government's going to come in, and we're going to legislate and mandate equality of outcomes.
But what does it mean to you in real terms?
Well, the great leader, Chairman Hillary, assures us that the new society, this we're all in it together society, means prosperity to all.
Every American will get affordable health insurance bestowed by the same big government types who created the problems that we have now.
Corporations will be punished.
And she's making no secret of this.
This is not the first time she said this.
She says that there will be no more special breaks.
Oil companies are going to be punished the most.
Oil companies will be required to invest in technologies that she and government deem appropriate, or they will face higher taxes.
Corporate CEOs will have their paychecks monitored by the public, and they will be open to public challenge.
This is stunning admissions that she's making.
And I tell you what, the fact that the drive-bys are not pumping it up and making a big deal out of it is because they know how damaging this could be if it were given wide play.
Some out there, I'm sure, would love to celebrate this and ring the bells, but they don't dare.
My gosh, this stuff hasn't been proposed ever in this country in such open, blatant terms.
It goes on and on and on about how this is just such an unfair society.
It is on your own business.
It leads to inequality.
It leads to some having more than others.
And the reason some get more than others is that the people who have more steal from the others.
And it's not fair.
It just isn't right.
So what she favors is collectivism.
And if you study collectivism, communism, socialism, wherever it is, and has been around the world, you will find a trail of human misery, economic collapse, and failure in its wake.
But she says the government can be the great equalizer, and it can't.
I asked this question again in less than 200 years, the United States of America has surpassed every population group, every other country, every system of government on earth by unlocking one thing, and that is the vast potential of individual effort encouraged by freedom.
How anybody can look at this country and want to destroy it and tear it down or remake its society is beyond most people's grasp.
Why would they want to destroy this?
You have to understand there are people that do, and that's in large part what the immigration debate represents and the immigration bill represents for the American left.
They're all about tearing down the institutions of this country that have made it great, that have defined it, that have made us unique in just over 200 short years compared to thousands and thousands of years for many other countries.
Tear it down, just not fair.
They want to control it.
They want to own it.
They want to remake it in their image.
Why do you think they admire Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?
It's not because what is there to admire about Cuba?
Nothing, unless you are jealous of the power that Castro has and jealous of the power that Chavez has.
And that's what it is that drives them.
I'll tell you, folks, you own all by yourself the greatness of this country, and it doesn't need replacing by somebody who wishes to replicate failure and misery the world has known for too long.
Back in a moment.
America's real anchorman, sitting here behind a golden EIB microphone, the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Mrs. Clinton wants to remake American society.
Remember, it wasn't long ago, a few years ago, San Francisco, Mrs. Clinton said, we're going to have to take more from you to give it to the common good.
Remember, her husband, Bill Clinton, Buffalo, said, I think I might give you a tax cut, but I don't trust why you'd spend it.
I think we spent it better than what you would.
These people have been very open and bold about what their intentions are, just as enemies in al-Qaeda have been.
And yet people somehow don't have it registered.
So I'm going to try to take care of that.
Keep this in mind.
We have to take more from you to give it to the common good.
We are going to have shared prosperity.
Get that and keep it in mind with his next story, also AP.
Senator Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she followed all Senate rules when she accepted rides on a private jet from a longtime benefactor.
Shabbato, oh yeah, everybody does it.
No big deal.
Old news.
Whatever I've done, I've complied with Senate rules at the time.
That's the way every senator operates.
Oh, the everybody does it excuse.
Again, she said this.
Everybody lies about sex.
Whatever the Clintons do, everybody does it.
And that's the excuse.
Now, the travel and consulting fees paid to Clinton's husband have come to light recently in a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta, a Clinton contributor and chief executive of the data company InfoUSA.
The lawsuit by the company's shareholders accuses Gupta of excessively spending millions of dollars, including $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons, but that's not the half of it.
What did this company do?
It collected private data on elderly and gave it to people so they could exploit them.
I mean, Gupta's company took advantage of the elderly, gave the database away, and this is a firm that's flying the Clintons around on his jet and contributing $900,000 in other forms of travel.
Senator Clinton, who complained about corporate America's largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events on Wednesday, said she didn't believe that her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private flights.
In line with Senate rules then in effect, Clinton's campaign has said she reimbursed Gupta at the cost of a first-class flight, typically a significant discount off the executive.
Well, you want to know the difference?
Try the kind of plane she's traveling around on, try $5,000, $6,000 an hour versus a first-class ticket of $1,200 for her flights.
It is a stark difference.
I know these are Senate rules, but we need leadership here.
Mrs. Clinton, once again, setting things up for everybody else while exempting herself.
She thinks executive pay ought to be examined and that the public ought to have veto rights over executive pay.
She's worried about the largesse of American corporations and is out there just playing this class envy card.
And she said, well, those are the rules.
You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy.
Clinton struck several populist notes Wednesday in a speech at a union hall and a town hall appearance at a North Las Vegas has scrupled with a large number of minority and low-income students.
And then she made light of her own personal wealth.
And she actually said this.
You know, these people cannot stop bragging about their wealth.
She said, I know a lot of rich people.
My husband and I never had any money.
Now all of a sudden, we're rich.
I have nothing against rich people, but what made America great is the American middle class.
She won her loudest applause with her promise to end the war in Iraq.
All right, so here's a woman who wants to take everything you've got above what everybody else has and give it to everybody else.
Is she going to take away from her?
Is she going to spend her own money to fly herself around?
Why can't you go charter jets yourself, Mrs. Clinton?
You got all this money?
You're rich.
We're rich.
My husband and I never had any money.
Now all of a sudden, we're rich as though it's just an accident.
They woke up one day, we're rich.
Are they going to spend it on themselves?
No, they're going to use other people's money to get themselves around because they're hoarding what they have.
They're into the preservation of principal mode.
They're not going to spend any of their money, but boy, they're going to take yours.
So she will not live her life the way she is demanding and promising that everybody else will win, will live theirs.
The Brett girl is back.
Oh, but there was a great story.
You know, this sunken treasure they found out there of this hedge fund that the Brett girl joined to learn about poverty.
His booty is threatened here because, well, he's got a 10% take in the treasure.
And the treasure is about $500 million.
He goes to this hedge fund to learn about poverty.
One thing he learned about poverty is avoid it.
So he's now Spain is suing the hedge fund over rights to the sunken treasure.
Now, a lawsuit is a mating call to John Edwards.
This ought to be right up his alley.
So people are making claims on his money.
But it was just last week, I think it was just last week, we had a call on this program from a man, very nice guy, but it was exceedingly frustrating for me, your host, because he wanted to say, and he did say, that there is no free market in oil and gasoline, that all the oil companies own the product from the moment it's discovered in the ground until it's brought out and refined and put in your gas tank.
I say, you saying that there's price fix.
Well, price fixing, but it's not a free market in gasoline.
And I spent probably 20 minutes after that call explaining the complexities of the oil business.
The largest oil companies in the world, and I think four of the top five are not even American.
The largest oil company in the world is Saudi Arabia's oramco.
And then you have number five is ExxonMobil with 3% of the world's oil as market share.
And in the meantime, the Brett girl says that a wave of mergers in the oil industry should be investigated by the Justice Department to see what impact they've had on soaring gasoline prices.
During a planned campaign stop yesterday, or today, actually, Silicon Valley, Edwards planned to berate the oil industry for anti-competitive actions and outline an energy plan that he says would reduce oil imports and get us on a path to be virtually petroleum-free within a generation.
It's not possible.
That is irresponsible to tell anybody we're going to be virtually petroleum-free in 25 years.
It's not possible, folks.
It is not.
And anybody who tried to bring that about is dangerous.
It is simply impossible.
This is pure populist rhetoric during rising gas prices and is designed to prey on people whose knowledge of economics in general is woeful or inept.
All of these mergers of these companies have not affected the price of gasoline.
There are too many, I don't want to go through it again.
There are factors we can't even calculate that end up determining the price of gasoline.
And one of the biggest factors in the price of gasoline, and this came up yesterday on Today's show with Matt Wauer.
He had to shell oil, Conoco Shell CEO.
And Lauer said, well, you know, a year ago we had you on here and you said that the price of gasoline is tied to the barrel price of oil.
And if that goes down, the gasoline price will go down.
Well, oil is $10 a barrel cheaper this year and a gas price is higher.
How could that be?
I said, well, normally it's true, but because 60% of the price of gasoline is related to the price of oil.
But, Matt, demand is skyrocketing.
Demand is, and Lauer picked up on it and said, yes, it's our fault.
We are addicted to gasoline.
Which also set me off yesterday because it's impossible to be addicted to gas.
Gasoline's food.
It is not an addiction.
People cannot do with less of it.
It's not something that people use that they don't need.
It's not a recreational commodity like is associated with other things that people are addicted to.
It is the fuel of our democracy.
It's the fuel of the engine of freedom.
And that's why we're not going to be petroleum-free in 25 years.
John Edwards, every time I listen to this man speak, folks, this is really unkind to say, but I have never gotten, I have never understood what it is, the hype and the brilliance of all these Democrats.
Ted Kennedy has never been right about anything.
He'd been proven wrong since 1943 on immigration.
Everything he's done has been proven wrong.
In the great society, all these social welfare programs, what they were going to cost, the results we were going to get, all the problems we're going to solve.
Nothing has ever worked out the way they said.
Mrs. Clinton botched everything she tried when she was first lady.
Nothing worked out the way she said.
Smartest woman in the world.
John Edwards, brilliant, brilliant.
Trio lawyer.
Some days I think he's got the IQ of a pencil eraser.
The quotes in this oil story are just beyond belief.
You remember John Edwards?
And I guess it was either a debate or it was the Democrat National Convention 2004 where he says if John Kerry is elected, that Christopher Reeve will walk again.
I'm going to tell you something.
Oil-free in 25 years, I'm still in a state of stunned disbelief over the absolute irresponsibility and idiocy of this.
Nobody will join him in this quest.
It is impossible.
He will be bald before we stop using oil.
All right, to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Michael in Manhattan, Kansas.
Great to have you as your up first.
First call every day sets a tone for all the other callers.
It's an awesome responsibility.
Oh my.
I'm not sure I can handle it right now.
I'm sure you can.
That's why you're first.
All right.
Well, hey, I was talking about Chairman Hillary and what's going to happen to those average guys that make less than $30,000 a year out here.
And if she gets her way in this new society, she's wanting to push forward.
Well, here's the danger about this is two things, really.
She's actively talking about doing it.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of support she gets on it.
And that's actually not true because they're not making a big deal about this.
This is one of these Hillary stories that's being buried.
The next thing is there's an 80% chance this woman is going to be elected the next president of the United States.
As we sit here today, there is an 80% chance that she's the next president.
You totally disagree with that, Snerdley.
77, 75.
Well, no, I'm not going to give up.
Thompson's not in yet.
Tom to get in, well, I'll recalculate.
But no, I'm not even basing it on any of the Republican candidates right now.
And there's a historical thing.
When's the last time that, aside from George W. Bush winning the third term after Reagan's two, when's the last time a party's held the White House for three terms under an FDR?
You got that historical aspect, but there are other factors.
I've detailed them on previous broadcasts.
Don't need to detail them again here.
The fact is, there's an 80% chance she's going to be the next president.
As we sit here today, not anything can change tomorrow to upset this apple cart.
So if she really tries to do this, you know, this is not inconsequential.
You know, words mean things.
She's been saying this stuff since she was first lady.
She's been saying this is what her vision of the ideal society is.
It's not enough to sit there and say, oh, that'll never happen.
It will if people don't shape up and pay attention and understand that it's a, well, she'll try.
I don't know whether she could succeed in pulling it off, but you have to understand, you know, the Soviets.
The Soviets always had these five-year plans and these 10-year plans, and they never, ever admitted failure.
It just, if they took two steps forward and had to take a step back, they would do it.
They didn't actually put limits or time limits on when they had to get this done, or if they didn't, it'd be a failure.
They never gave up.
And it's the way liberals are.
That's why they have to constantly be battled.
It's why they have to constantly be defeated.
They don't give up.
They'd love to be able to get all this done tomorrow.
Hugo Chavez be vice president.
They can't get it done tomorrow, but they'll do it, take as long as they need to to get it done.
And this is, so it requires constant vigilance and taking this stuff seriously.
Look, folks, I'm not making it up.
I'm not coming here and saying, I know this woman.
I know what she really thinks.
She's telling us.
It's just like what Bin Laden is telling us and like Zawahiri is telling us.
It's up to us to listen to this stuff.
I know you are.
I'm actually talking about the American people beyond the boundaries of this program.
Tip City, Ohio.
This is Brenda.
Brenda, glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
I hope you're having a wonderful day.
Yeah, we are.
It's here to talk to you.
It sent shivers down my spine to hear you talk about what Hillary wants to do because the American left, the average person that would vote for something like that, it's scary because most of the world that came into power and ran a society like she's talking about, i.e. Cuba, they did it through force.
And we have enough American people that would actually vote her into office to do that.
That's scary.
Yeah, it's true.
And why do you think this is?
It's because the 50-year effort at exploiting class envy that is a great example.
They don't stop.
Whether they lose elections with it or not, they don't stop.
They keep using class envy, resentment, blaming tax cuts on the rich for every malady that everybody else has.
And human nature is undeniable.
It is what it is.
And a lot of people have the syndrome, the grass is always greener, keeping up with the Joneses.
And it's just a fact of life and human nature that people look at others who have more and get envious and jealous.
Some people do.
So, how come they have all that and I don't?
Well, I'm just as good as they are.
It's not fair.
If somebody comes along and says, Don't worry, I'll take it away from them.
All right.
I want to feel better because I want to see those people get punished.
We all love the car crash.
We all, you know, our culture these days loves to build people up and then tear them down.
And we love it when people get torn down.
We love it when people get theirs.
And the left has been promulgating this kind of stuff for decades and decades, and they've been fueling this resentment.
So, yeah, you're right.
There are a certain number of Americans.
My gosh, if they can cheer Hugo Chavez shutting down an opposition TV station, if they can cheer the United States losing the war on terror and losing in Iraq, if they can cheer this, you don't think they'll have an easier time cheering the rich in this country, the so-called rich getting theirs.
I always tell people: I've had calls from people who think, I think this is a good idea.
CEOs are making way too much money.
Oh, a company's seeing the profits.
Give the profits back, lower the price.
They could eliminate their profit for one year, and it would matter a nickel to the gallon of gas that they sell for a year.
It doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis.
And yet, people have called here and said, I think that would be good.
CEOs make too much money.
It's not fair.
Line workers aren't making anything.
Let me ask you a question.
Let's say that the CEO's salaries get cut.
By the way, they will just find a way to bonus them with stock options or whatever.
They're not going to lose money, folks.
It's not going to end up happening that way.
But in the meantime, let's say that your neighbor makes more than you do.
He gets a tax increase and you don't.
So he has less money than he had.
Is your life any better?
Is your economic circumstance improved at all by somebody else suffering economic hardship?
It doesn't matter a heel of beans, but people Hillary talks to and appeals to have been conditioned because they're fomenting out this hate and rage to be made happy when others share their misery.
And that's what she's trying to do.
We'll be back.
What do you think this headline is about?
▲
Export Selection