All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
June 22, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome to the program.
Good F uh good morning, good afternoon, uh wherever you are across the fruited plains.
Hi, I'm sitting in for Rush today.
He'll be back on Monday.
So uh glad to have you join me on this Friday edition.
It is open line Friday, and there they are well, I have a big stack.
I don't know what your stack looks like, but I've got a big stack.
A big stack of I do I have I don't know what your stack looks like.
No, I did not mean it that way.
I just was uh rambling here.
Hey, happy to uh to to run along with you today on this Friday edition.
There are um there's a lot to go over today, and so I don't want to I want to get right into it because we've got I have I have the the Congress just absolutely is starting to become more and more of a farce every single day.
It's a joke, and the things that they have done, I'm not I'm just gonna I'm just gonna tell you what your Congress is doing.
And I know you're paying attention because of the fact that we keep seeing that the reason the ratings for the Congress are going lower and lower.
What was the last one with down to twenty-two percent, I think, of the people think they're doing a good job.
If there was if there was something where we said eight almost eighty percent of us agreed on something, wouldn't that be incredible?
Well, that's about where we are with Congress and what they're doing, and it does bring up another area which I don't know if you spent a lot of time talking about, but I I have some um some very definite feelings about the Michael Bloomberg leaving the Republican Party, says he's not gonna run for president, but it all ties in with this with this feeling in the country today that the leadership that we have wanted is not there.
And it's not a matter of of them not doing much.
In fact, uh an old friend of mine many years ago who was a former member of Congress told me, he says, uh he says, Tom, he says, you don't want you don't want Congress to move fast.
You don't want government to move fast.
You want it to move slow and deliberative so that people have a chance to express their views, everybody thinks about it, and that's how you get the best uh the best policies.
But we're not doing that right now.
We're not doing that uh, and as a result, that is why that that gives an opening to a Michael Bloomberg if he wants to do it.
And we've got this um have you heard about the Unity O eight group?
It's so it's a it's just it's I think it was it may get some traction finally because they talked about it before.
It's a group of people that are trying to come up with some sort of nebulous middle of the road, no d no association with any party.
Let's just come up with the best people and we'll vote for them.
And we're gonna have a we're gonna do things like have an online vote.
That's what we're gonna do, an online vote.
I'm going, well, that's nice.
It's so much like the Democrats in this country, they come up with things that make you th feel good, and they sound like they they just they just sound nice.
But do they ever accomplish anything?
So you got Michael Bloomberg who comes along who says that he is a doer.
That he's a guy, in fact, he's been complaining about legislators in Washington not doing anything, and he's sitting in New York uh rolling up his sleeves and getting things done.
So there's a big debate, obviously, about where is the leadership, where's the leadership in Washington, where's the leadership in in cities and counties and states?
And does Michael Bloomberg have a chance because of our growing frustration with it?
And I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican.
I've got some things here from some Democrats that are they're getting louder and louder.
A lot of Democrats are complaining about the Democratic leadership in the in the uh Congress.
So where do where do you want to start today?
Let's start with um.
They just passed an energy bill in the Senate.
They voted for this energy bill, which is going to change the gas mileage in uh all automobiles for cars, for trucks, uh pickup trucks, for SUVs, for uh I guess Hummers, everybody, everybody's gonna have to comply.
They're gonna uh it's gonna have to be 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Okay.
Currently, cars have to get twenty-seven and a half miles per gallon, SUVs and pickups twenty-two miles per gallon.
So they're gonna move twenty-two and twenty-seven, it's gonna go up to thirty-five by two thousand twenty.
That's what, thirteen years from now.
First of all, if you uh the the one thing that comes with this always is the statement about this is how in fact Harry Reed was uh saying this ex I'll paraphrase, but it was almost I've got it almost word for word, is the fact that Harry Reid said this is what is going to allow us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Folks, I'm old enough to remember this back when the Arab oil embargo in the um in the 1970s.
We are going to reduce, and that's when the first uh uh what do they call them cafe, the the fuel standards bill came along was right after that, and they said, Oh, what we need to do is we need to increase uh gas mileage.
And guess what?
We did.
In fact, we doubled our gas mileage in our cars after the 70s.
In the next ten years, we doubled our gas mileage.
Why do you think we doubled our gas mileage?
Because people wanted it.
People said, I'm gonna go buy those little cars that are coming over here from Japan.
And so Toyota and Nissan and all these other car manufacturers that showed up right after the the oil embargo of the 70s, all of a sudden they were outselling Detroit.
So what do you think happened?
Yes, they changed the rules, but what happened was was that the marketplace said, I like these cars that get better gas mileage, and that's what I'm gonna go buy.
So we move along through the decades and we come up and we really haven't changed a lot in that after that first ten years.
Our gas mileage is still about the same, but it's still pretty darn good.
I drive a big old luxury sedan and I get, well, I I get like twenty miles to the gallon city.
So I'm going, I I don't know, it just seems like a big improvement, but that's so they've said, all right, we're moving it to 35.
Now a couple of different things.
Number one is do you believe that this will somehow magically by going from 27 to 35 miles per gallon, somehow we are going to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
And if we're going to reduce it, are we going to reduce it by a little?
Or are we going to reduce it by I mean something substantial that really makes a difference?
I don't think it's going to be substantial.
I don't think we're reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
Not from this.
Secondly, is there anything in this bill that allows for exploration for technology?
Whether you want to drill out in the ocean off the coast, or whether or not you want to drill in Alaska or the North Slope, or whether you want to go and try and do some work on the oil shale in the call in the in the uh the Rocky Mountain area.
I don't see any of that.
I I've looked, I don't, it doesn't talk about any of that.
All it talks about is one thing and one thing only, which is re uh uh up upping the uh the mileage standards.
So if that's what we're going to do, what do you think your car is going to look like by the year 2020?
Now, right now, the automakers, if you'll notice, a lot of the automobiles look alike, don't they?
Have you noticed that?
If you look at the shape of automobiles, the minivans all kind of look alike.
The SUVs all kind of look alike.
The sedans all kind of look alike.
And the reason for that is because they have these computer-aided design functions that they have in all of the auto manufacturers, and they have done everything they possibly can to make the curve of the fender and the slope of the windshield and the size of the width of the car and everything else about it,
so that it is the most economical and most efficient as it flows through the air, as it flows through, so that we get less resistance, all those physics things that you studied about one time.
So if our state of the art computer aided design is giving us what we've got now, they're going to have to make some drastic changes in order To make an automobile that goes 35 miles per gallon.
I think it's one of these things that Congress is doing that they just do and then they sit back and then nothing ever happens out of that.
So we've got, yeah, I know.
We've got the House of Representatives voted to reverse a ban on contraception aid to groups overseas that offer abortions.
It was voted pretty much along party lines.
And this is something that was started by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, which bans assistance to organizations that promote abortion or perform abortion as a method of family planning.
So what?
So you No, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm not going to get into the abortion debate here.
What fascinates me about this is that when we're uh they're talking about this uh Congresswoman from New York, Nita Lowy, who chairs the House Appropriations Panel that oversees foreign aid budget.
And she says it is simply not enough to say you support family planning so long as the current restrictions remain in law.
Well, let me back you up just a little bit, Nita, and ask you first of all, why are we sending birth control pills and what's the proper word on the radio?
Can I say rubbers?
To condoms, thank you.
To people all over the world.
Why are we buying them their stuff?
And secondly, what is it our business why we are involved in family planning in all corners of the world?
But but it's going to cost you 34, well, let's see, the $34 billion bill is the total uh total bill that pays for the State Department and for foreign aid.
So I don't have the amount of how much we're going to spend on sending things to people so they can do their better family planning.
But that's just uh part of it.
And then we're also um watching Congress, they are they're doing a big payback for big labor.
I'll get into that as we go through the program today.
They also are challenging a company who wants to who's going public today because of the fact that they're I think it's just a greed problem on the part of the members of Congress.
Let me take a break and come back.
We have a lot to talk about.
You want to join the program, the phone number is 800-282-2882.
My name is Tom Sullivan.
This is the Rush Limbaugh Radio program.
Welcome back.
Tom Sullivan setting for Rush.
He's back on Monday.
And uh no, really, no, seriously, why are we sending uh uh birth control, family planning?
Why are we even involved in family planning around the world?
I mean, we talk about our involvement around the world.
I'm not uh I no, I I'm looking for an answer.
I don't know.
And in a I mean, they're they're talking about how much they're going to spend on contraceptives.
I'm talking about what backup from there.
Why are we sending contraceptives?
Why are we even involved in that?
And another one, one of my one of my pet peeves that I've always been fascinated by, and nobody else seems to be, but let me share my my uh my view on on this uh higher education legislation that always comes along.
Congress from the Committee on Health Education, Labor, and pensions.
They are working on, they've got a bipartisan, that means everybody's hugging each other back there in Washington on higher education legislation that will help students repay their loans.
Well, whoop de-do.
We're helping the people who are now let me go back again.
All the studies that have been done about those who are college educated will generally wind up making a whole bunch more than those that are not college educated.
So what are we doing?
We are writing bills and writing laws and spending lots of money to help the people who will be the highest income earners in the country to reduce the burden of debt on them from their school loans.
I'm lost on that one.
I don't the I look at I mean it's you know it's it's a country of equal opportunity.
Everybody gets the same opportunity.
Some do more about it than others.
For those who do well and make a whole bunch of money, these are the people we're gonna go out, and I don't have a problem with making a lot of money.
I'm all for it.
Well, why are we spending tax dollars to help the people who are going to make the most money reduce their deb I mean I could go on and on and I've got a big I've got a big long list here, so let's get some calls in.
Dave from Akron, Ohio.
Dave, hello.
You're on the uh Rush Lindbaugh show gr uh show with Tom Sullivan.
Yeah, how are you doing, Tom?
I'm doing fine.
I want to make a brief comment about the car that uh is going to get uh in excess of forty miles per gallon already exists, and there's probably several of them.
The one that comes to my mind is a four-passenger model that was built in France called a citrogen C V two.
I'll leave it up to the old, old, old uh French model.
Yeah.
They're kind of ugly things, but they're kind of they became cool for a while.
Well, yes, that's that that's true.
And the thing of it is the thing developed a whopping nine horsepower from an air-cooled engine, and it went uh from zero to sixty in about thirty-five seconds.
Well, then why aren't there millions of them in America?
Well, number one, I don't think they get him in because of the safety restrictions.
There was no airbag on this.
If you got with a bicycle, you were toast.
But if you wanted to uh see what this is going to take us to, then you know the listeners out there can listen to or can pull this up on a website and look for uh Yeah, but but but your point you're how do you spell it in C I T R O E N?
A citrogen?
Is it is it citrogen?
I'm not exactly sure.
Like I say, it's French.
They still make them.
Uh they march with Marzerati for a while.
They made uh an interrupt.
But you bring up the point, it was we can't bring them in because of the fact that they've got to have all the things that we require about bumpers and airbags and everything else here in this country.
Well, and so as for seats, you actually they had fibroc and you actually sat on a uh almost like a hammock that was uh made to seat the uh they're funky cars, no question about it.
My big thing about it is my big thing is that you uh need to have a way to let the the free market decide what they're going to buy.
If somebody wants to buy something that gets five miles to the gallon, uh they're gonna be paying a lot more in fuel taxes and fuel and everything else along the road.
So what's uh I I don't understand what the problem is.
Let's go to John and Bozeman Montana.
Hello, John, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Tom Sullivan.
Hi, how's it going?
I um have a question about Bloomberg uh leaving the GOP and him maybe running for president.
How does an individual um vote for a third party candidate or how do we get a third party candidate without splitting the GOP and electing Clinton again?
Uh yeah, uh I I know people are concerned about where it's going to come from.
I think see, I look at I look at Michael Bloomberg and I go.
I don't think most Republicans are concerned about him leading leaving the Republican Party because first of all, he wasn't a Republican.
Secondly, he used to be a registered Democrat.
He's an opportunist when it comes to whatever it might be as far as which party he thinks he can win.
That's why he switched to Republican because of the fact that Mayor Giuliani had done such a great job.
Everybody wanted more of the same.
So I think most Republicans are gonna go look at I I'll get into Michael Bloomberg's background and what he stands for and what he's against and what he's for, and I'll I'll tell you I don't think that it is I don't think it is anything that is going to make any Republican uh all that nervous.
If anything, he's really more of a Democrat than anything else.
He's uh gosh, let me get the the list out here.
He's uh he has supported higher taxes.
He's for more government regulations.
He enacted the citywide ban on smoking.
He's working on a on a ban for and a big tax for cars coming into Manhattan.
He has got the trans fat regulations for restaurants and bakeries in New York.
He has um adamantly opposed the second amendment.
So he is uh pro-gun control.
He is pro-choice on abortion.
He is pro-gay marriage.
I mean, is there anything in here?
Now granted, I mean, this guy is a smart guy and he's made a lot of money and he's made it from every penny that he has is his.
But I think he more than anything else took what what Rudy Giuliani did and basically just kept working it.
Just kept working it.
But I look at this and I go, This is a guy that to me isn't going to disturb the Republican Party if anybody is worried.
I don't think it's a deja vu situation.
I think we're going to go back and we're going to find out that this is going to hurt the Democrats much more than it will the Republicans.
Watch, check my word.
We'll all find out very soon.
We'll be back.
Tom Sullivan in for rush.
Welcome back, everybody.
Uh happy Friday to you.
Rush is back on Monday.
The phone number here to join the program 800-282-2882, and of course you've got all kinds of material at Rushlimbaugh.com.
I'm I've I've just got a long list of things that your Congress and mine is working on.
And it's uh it's fascinating to see all the different things that they have.
These are the big issues of the of the day.
It's um the fuel economy.
I don't know what it's going to look like.
I don't know what cars are going to look like.
But 35 miles per gallon, the the thing that they're missing out of this bill is remember we always talk about conservation.
But we never talk about production, and I'm going, what about production?
Where is the production?
One of the pr I think one of the biggest problems, if you listen to the oil people, they talk about the fact that there's plenty of oil in the world.
There's lots of it.
The fact that they got to the point where there was a glut here a couple of months ago.
And so they're cutting back on their production from OPEC and everything else.
They're going through all that process, but oil from the ground doesn't fit in your gas tank.
I think the problem, if you listen again to the oil company executives, they talk about the refinery process and all the problems with the refinery process.
And yet we haven't had any refineries built in um I know in in uh California there hasn't been one built in thirty years.
I don't know how across the nation if there's been a new refinery built in thirty years.
And what they're doing is they're taking these old refineries and they're consolidating the companies are buying them, consolidating them, trying to make them more efficient, like any other business does.
But if the government I I mean, I'm not I'm I know the government, I'm not a big uh government privatized uh competition guy, but I'm looking at this and going, all right, you want to fix something, why don't you go out and build some refineries?
You can't build refineries.
Why they are ugly and the community and the neighborhood and everybody else would get all upset.
So we've got this we've got this problem.
We've got a handful of people that are controlling what affects you and me in a big way from price, supply, and everything else when it comes to gasoline.
So we can move up the fuel standards from twenty-seven to thirty-five.
That's nice.
But I don't think it's going to have any major impact, uh impact upon our reliance upon foreign oil.
And unless you get some other source, like here in the U.S., or you allow for alternative energies to uh to come along in the form of uh some of the energy that we use in this country.
When you talk about energy bill, we just don't get we just don't get it.
We are not tapping all the sources that we could tap.
And we don't let the free market control it.
I'm telling you, the history of the free market shows the reason why there's so many Toyotas and Nissans in this country today is because of the fact that they got better gas mileage and the people went for it.
Richard in uh Washington, D.C., Richard High, you're on the Rush program with Tom Sullivan.
Hey, Tom, how are you?
Doing great.
Uh listen, I had uh two two topics to cover with you.
One is the use of the word rubber.
I I can only make one of the three conclusions, and that is that you either haven't gotten any in a long time.
You're happily married, or you've given up entirely.
Am I that is it has it been that long?
That's a very that's very vintage of you.
Thank you.
Your engineers must have been gagging on that one.
They they've they were in fact Mamon tells me they sell them in the grocery store now, and I said to him, I haven't been in a grocery store in thirty years.
Why would I know that?
I don't I don't think they call them rubbers anymore.
Okay, all right.
Uh on the on the legislation, uh, you know, I obviously most like most people, I haven't I haven't read the um the entire set of documents.
But I I gotta say that this is this is one case.
I'm a pretty staunch conservative, and this is one case where I think that it's not such a not such a terrible thing.
I'm all for capitalism, supply and demand economics.
But yeah, I I I don't think that this is a terrible thing.
I don't either.
I don't either.
It's just that it's they're trying to solve everything with just that, and that alone won't do it.
That's my problem with it.
You know, you're probably looking at five percent or less, maybe one percent of the issue.
Uh clearly other things need to be done to relieve dependency on foreign oils and things of that.
I'm all for cutting up Alaska, that's fine.
Uh that that would do the job.
But you know, i granted it's it's not comprehensive, but you know, the the one problem that the Democrats have consistently is that they'll say exactly the opposite of what Republicans will say, regardless of whether it's the right thing to do or not.
We could point to instances week after week after week where they'll say the opposite of the what what the Republicans will say when it's clearly not not the right thing to do.
So I'll give you an example.
The recent one of the recent Democratic uh uh debates where they were asked if English should be the uh the language of the country, yeah.
Right.
And you and you have what one one of nine people might gravel raising his hand, and the others just looked at each other like w what what should we say about this?
Come on.
Yes.
They all know that the answer is yes.
Yes.
Although that's another that's another one of those meaningless uh pieces of legislation.
Do you know what the you know that one of the states that has in in its constitution that the language of the state will be English?
Is California.
How's that working?
In other words, these are laws that are silly laws, it's silly business, and that's what they're doing back there, and that's what's going on.
They say, Well, we need to debate this.
They don't know what to say.
I agree with you so much, Richard, that they don't know what to say to each other.
Because they don't want to offend anybody.
But it doesn't matter.
Why are they even talking about it?
Why are they talking about it when it doesn't work?
California has it in its constitution, and half the state doesn't speak English, I swear.
In fact, some days I think it's more than that.
Wha why are they why are they spending your tax dollars on helping some kid pay back his school loans when he's gonna make more money than everybody else theoretically?
Why are they worrying about family planning in some foreign country off in the corner of the world?
Joe in uh Erie, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Joe, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Tom Sullivan.
Hey Tom, how you doing?
Doing great.
Definitely one of my favorite substitute teachers.
Thanks.
Um you'll run circles around me here on economic policy, but I'll give you a uh a college student loan taker view on uh on why I think it's a good idea.
Um if you let's say the the government floats me a low interest loan and uh and therefore it's a subsidy.
Right if they floated the same as the market, they'd be making some pretty decent money, I think, um on it.
I uh if you look back at how Regan set up his policy, that supply side, I would say that's an investment.
I mean, I'm going to if if my income in theory is higher than the national average, in fact, much higher, um I'm gonna return that investment in in not only income tax, but in sales tax and goods.
Great.
So why should I why should I take money out of my pocket to help you with your investments?
I presume your answer is because I'll get a return on it.
You'll get a return in a lower tax base.
Um in time, whatever whatever that time is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I and I understand that whole theory.
Here's the thing about it though.
Here's the way that student loans uh should work is that instead of the government giving you money what they do is that they they guarantee the private sector a bank to give you the money the bank therefore has less risk and therefore they cut the interest rate lower you get a lower interest rate the bank get makes the money off of you and we stand in the corner and say we'll support him if he fails.
And that's that's probably one of the ways to do it.
But as they continue to keep adding more to the uh pile of uh concern about your future I'm going you have a bright future if you get a degree.
I mean I think I think I think you'll make that investment whether I help you or not.
I agree I agree.
However let me just say I mean it's i and you know time value money is good as any finance guy is if you if I'm able to get through college in four years by a by a loan and I think that the I think the government does that with Citibank in fact I I know they do as far as uh back and the loan um is if I can make start making that income earlier you know instead of going to night school instead of working three jobs and taking you know eight ten years to get through an undergrad yeah it's a time value.
I'm not hey I I'm all with you.
I you know I'm I'm like the rest of America that looks at our uh the especially today's Congress and and shrugs their shoulders and kind of you know looks in disgust but uh hey the last point is is most I think if you I don't know I'm gonna guess though and just off my own data is most kids getting student loans are middle income not low income in total total numbers not just because I suspect I suspect your guess is a pretty good guess.
Okay.
And who gets squeezed the worst?
It is in in in the U.S. It's the middle income.
My parents made enough money for you know after get by they didn't make enough money for me to pay a college but they made too much money for me to get financial aid.
You got it I mean you and I mean I I found my own student loans.
So what are you doing?
Do you have a job?
Oh yeah yeah I'm I'm I'm an old guy.
Yeah so I I did the same thing.
My parents I came from a low income household.
I mean my folks my folks did not have any money.
So I had to pay for college.
I had to go to work.
So I I don't know.
I I I think it it made something it made me better.
Oh I completely agree.
You know it it's it's one of those things where don't give me the whole mount.
Give me enough where I still gotta bust my butt in college but I but enough to get to get you know get through it.
Well I agree with I agree with you that all the the aid goes to uh the very the very low end and um I suppose that's probably where we should is reach out to those who for some reason can't make it on their own through the ones that I want to reach out to are the ones who through no fault of their own because of illness or injury are the ones that uh are somehow not able to financially keep food on the table roof over the head,
I'm willing to help them but there's all kinds of charitable ways to do it in in addition to the government.
Government has got their nose in the they're becoming a nanny state and they're g they're getting their nose into everything.
So I just want to I would love to see Congress back off and just focus on the big issues of the nation and not worry so much about all these little picky unish little programs that they've got going including whatever you call them now sending them over to foreign countries.
We'll be back.
The phone number to join the program 800 28282.
I'm Tom Sullivan this is Rushman Brah's program.
Welcome back Tom Sullivan in for uh Rush I was just watching this report about uh the video game addiction you hear this the good the the that uh there's a video game they're calling it now they're treating it as a disorder.
Ever that's another thing.
Everything is a disorder now.
Whatever you do, if you don't if you're odd, if you're different, if you do something wrong, there's uh well he has a disorder.
He has a for example the members of Congress they have a I know how to live your life better than you do disorder.
We should treat him.
Bill in Bergen County New Jersey.
Hi Bill.
Hi there, thanks for taking my call.
Uh I heard the mayor Bloomberg on the radio this morning.
Yeah and I'm convinced now that he's he doesn't plan to run for uh president but I think by becoming an independent it makes him uh free and able to endorse Hillary if the time comes for that.
Uh not that he would endorse Hill.
I lost your line of thinking there because I I heard what you said but what difference does it make if he were the Republican mayor of New York City and he endorsed Hillary Clinton over the Republican for president, assuming it wasn't Rudy.
Uh I think uh there'd be so a lot of talk about that.
Well, he's already said nice things about Hillary in the past until lately, but I mean he's talked about Bill and Hillary, and he's complimented them and he's joins them at climate conferences, and he so I mean I don't see I think it's all surface stuff, Bill.
I think this is all surface stuff.
I think it's just I I I I appreciate the fact that you're you know the mayor better than I do, but I I think New York, but no, but you know, you you're in the New York media market, so you know what he's doing and and how the public's reacting to him.
No, I understand.
But he's uh uh he may want to run for vice president.
I didn't get the vice president is from Canada on either.
With who?
With who?
Uh not with Hillary, but if uh if uh the guy in Massachusetts gets or the guy in North Carolina gets the uh uh uh what's his name?
The guy with the the haircuts.
If he becomes uh the president of the case.
Oh, the bre the Breck girl, John Edwards?
John Edwards, yeah.
He could uh become his uh uh vice presidential candidate.
He simply couldn't be Hillary's, I understand that.
They're both in New York.
But uh I I don't think he wants to get out of politics.
I think he enjoys it too much.
Uh you know, it's a late move in his life, and he enjoys this better than the business world.
Yeah, no qu no question about it.
Uh there's no question that he likes this, but I uh I'll bet you a large lunch at a drive up window bill that he runs.
Okay, well I'll take a run on it, and I'll be glad to be one of the cheap joints.
I don't want to spend a lot on this.
Steve and Little Rock.
Hi, Steve, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Tom Zullivan.
I appreciate it.
Uh comment on student tuition.
I'm a truck driver.
I don't make a lot of money in that fifty, fifty-five thousand range.
Yeah.
Son and daughter, eighteen years old, graduate from high school.
They're supposed to be adults.
They can drink, but they're supposed to be adults.
They're on their own.
Yeah, yeah.
If they go to get their student loans, how much does dad make?
Oh, that's too much money.
He's gonna have to pay.
You know what I'm saying?
Wait a minute, a student loan or a student grant?
Not grant.
I'm sorry, grant.
Yeah, because a grant is where they give your kids money and they're going, I'm not gonna give you money when your dad makes fifty-five thousand dollars.
And quite bluntly, I understand that.
Now alone.
Another point is two children instead of just one.
Uh well you follow what I'm saying there.
So I'm not sure.
That brings me back that me brings me back to the contraceptive conversation.
Sure.
You needed to you you need to get on that federal program.
Yes, sir.
No, I hear I hear you.
You have two, three kids, you go out there and uh they grow up and all of a sudden they hit the college door at the same time.
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't cost a lot of money.
I'm telling you it costs a ton of money.
But at the same time, when we're dishing out dollars and we have limited dollars, it just seems to me that the people that are going to be the most successful are the ones that work hard, go through that.
I mean, college is no more than just proving that you can be disciplined.
And when you come out on the other side, you're supposed to make more money.
Why are we supporting those people?
I don't know.
800-282-2882.
I'm Tom Sullivan.
This is a Rush Limbaugh program.
Tom Sullivan setting in for Rush.
Uh next hour we're going to talk about uh big labor gets a big payback from the members of Congress.
It's unbelievable the secret ballot that are doing away with or trying to.
Larry in Indiana.
Hi, Larry, you got about a minute.
Hi, uh Diddos, and please pass that to the great one.
Uh you're thanks.
You you've got really good liberals that finance their entire college education with student loans, graduate with a debt load of sixty to seventy thousand dollars, and they've taken a bunch of liberal claptrap in college.
Women study social work, learning how to be good socialists, and then can't make enough money to pay back your student loans and you're screaming for government help.
Yeah, there's that too, and uh the I don't know what the default rate is on student loans, but I've got the impression that most of the kids pay it back, and that's my point is that the people pay the loans, most of the people pay the loans back.
Why what people study, that's that's their business.
Why sh why should I pay for that?
I I don't I don't see the the logic behind it at all.
I just think it's one of those uh extra spending programs that I think is just a waste of time.
But we've got more again when we come back.
We can talk about uh this uh the union wants to do with away with the secret ballot.
Can you imagine anybody promoting that?
Big union is.
▲
Export Selection