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 morning, good afternoon, wherever you are across the fruited plains.
Hi, I'm sitting in for Rush today.
He'll be back on Monday.
So glad to have you join me on this Friday edition.
It is Open Line Friday.
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 rambling here.
Hey, happy to run along with you today on this Friday edition.
There's a lot to go over today.
And so I want to get right into it because we've got the Congress just absolutely 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 just going to tell you what your Congress is doing.
And I know you're paying attention because of the fact that we keep seeing that the ratings for the Congress are going lower and lower.
What was the last one?
It was down to 22%, I think, of the people think they're doing a good job.
If there was something where we said almost 80% 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 have some very definite feelings about the Michael Bloomberg leaving the Republican Party, says he's not going to run for president.
But it all ties in with this feeling in the country today that the leadership that we have wanted is not there.
And it's not a matter of them not doing much.
In fact, an old friend of mine many years ago who was a former member of Congress told me, he says, Tom, he says, 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 policies.
But we're not doing that right now.
We're not doing that.
And as a result, that is why that gives an opening to a Michael Bloomberg if he wants to do it.
And we've got this.
Have you heard about the Unity 08 group?
I think 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 association with any party.
Let's just come up with the best people and we'll vote for them.
And we're going to do things like have an online vote.
That's what we're going to 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 feel good, and they sound like 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 rolling up his sleeves and getting things done.
So there's a big debate, obviously, about where is the leadership, where is the leadership in Washington, where's the leadership 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 getting louder and louder.
A lot of Democrats are complaining about the Democratic leadership in the Congress.
So where do you want to start today?
Let's start with they just passed an energy bill in the Senate.
They voted for this energy bill, which is going to change the gas mileage in all automobiles for cars, for trucks, pickup trucks, for SUVs, for, I guess, hummers.
Everybody's going to have to comply.
It's going to have to be 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Okay?
Currently, cars have to get 27.5 miles per gallon, SUVs and pickups, 22 miles per gallon.
So they're going to move 22 and 27.
It's going to go up to 35 by 2020.
That's, what, 13 years from now?
First of all, if you, the one thing that comes with this always is the statement about this is how, in fact, Harry Reid was saying this, I'll paraphrase, but 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 1970s.
We are going to reduce, and that's when the first, what do they call them, CAFE, the fuel standards bill came along was right after that.
And they said, oh, what we need to do is we need to increase gas mileage.
And guess what?
We did.
In fact, we doubled our gas mileage in our cars after the 70s.
In the next 10 years, we doubled our gas mileage.
Why do you think we doubled our gas mileage?
Because people wanted it.
People said, I'm going to 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 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 that the marketplace said, I like these cars that get better gas mileage, and that's what I'm going to go buy.
So we move along through the decades and we come up, and we really haven't changed a lot after that first 10 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 get like 20 miles to the gallon city.
So I'm going, I don't know, it just seems like a big improvement.
But 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?
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 Rocky Mountain area?
I don't see any of that.
I've looked.
It doesn't talk about any of that.
All it talks about is one thing and one thing only, which is upping the mileage standard.
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, you know, no, I'm not going to get into the abortion debate here.
What fascinates me about this is that when we're talking about this 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?
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 it's going to cost you 30.
Well, let's see, the $34 billion bill is the 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 part of it.
And then we're also watching Congress.
They are 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 is 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 Lumbar Radio Program.
Welcome back.
Tom Sullivan signing for Rush.
Back on Monday, and no, really.
No, seriously, why are we sending 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, no, I'm looking for an answer.
I don't know.
And I mean, they're talking about how much they're going to spend on contraceptives.
I'm talking about backup from there.
Why are we sending contraceptives?
Why are we even involved in that?
And another one, one of my pet peeves that I've always been fascinated by, and nobody else seems to be.
But let me share my view on this higher education legislation that always comes along.
Congress from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
They are working on, and 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-doo, 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.
Look at it.
I mean, it's, you know, 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 going to go out.
And I don't have a problem with making a lot of money.
I'm all for it.
But why are we spending tax dollars to help the people who are going to make the most money reduce their debt?
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 Rush Limbaugh show with Tom Sullivan.
Yeah, how are you doing, Tom?
I'm doing fine.
I just want to make a brief comment about the car that is going to get in excess of 40 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 CV2.
I'll leave it in the middle.
That's been an old, old, old French model.
Yeah, they were kind of ugly things, but they became cool for a while.
Well, yes, that's true.
And the thing of it is that the thing developed a whopping nine horsepower from an air-cooled engine, and it went from zero to 60 in about 35 seconds.
Well, then why aren't there millions of them in America?
Well, number one, I don't think they get them in because of the safety restrictions.
There was no airbag on this.
If you got in it with a bicycle, you were toast.
But if you wanted to see what this is going to take us to, then the listeners out there can listen to or can pull this up on a website and look for.
Yeah, but your point, how do you spell it again?
C-I-T-R-O-E-N?
A citrogen?
Is it citrogen?
I'm not exactly sure.
Yeah.
C-I-T-R-O-C-I-N or something like that.
Like I say, it's French.
They still make them.
They march with Marzerati for a while.
They made a fucking French car.
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, as for seats, you actually, they had fibric, and you actually sat on a almost like a hammock that was made to seat the car.
Oh, yeah, they're funky cars, no question about it.
My big thing about it is, my big thing is that you need to have a way to let the free market decide what they're going to buy.
If somebody wants to buy something that gets five miles to the gallon, they're going to be paying a lot more in fuel taxes and fuel and everything else along the road.
So 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 have a question about Bloomberg leaving the GOP and him maybe running for president.
How does an individual vote for a third-party candidate, or how do we get a third-party candidate without splitting the GOP and electing Clinton again?
Yeah, I know people are concerned about where it's going to come from.
I think, see, I look at Michael Bloomberg and I go, I don't think most Republicans are concerned about him 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 going to go look at it.
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 tell you, I don't think that it is, I don't think it is anything that is going to make any Republican all that nervous.
If anything, he's really more of a Democrat than anything else.
He's, gosh, let me get the list out here.
He has supported higher taxes.
He's for more government regulations.
He enacted the citywide ban on smoking.
He's working on a ban for a big tax for cars coming into Manhattan.
He has got the trans fat regulations for restaurants and bakeries in New York.
He has adamantly opposed the Second Amendment.
So he is 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 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.
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've just got a long list of things that your Congress and mine is working on.
And it's fascinating to see all the different things that they have.
These are the big issues of the day.
It's 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 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 their production?
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, I know in California, there hasn't been one built in 30 years.
I don't know across the nation if there's been a new refinery built in 30 years.
And what they're doing is they're taking these old refineries and they're consolidating their companies are buying them, consolidating them, trying to make them more efficient, like any other business does.
But if the government, I mean, I know the government, I'm not a big government privatized 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 in the community and the neighborhood and everybody else would get all upset.
So 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 27 to 35.
That's nice.
But I don't think it's going to have any major 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 come along in the form of some of the energy that we use in this country, when you talk about energy bill, 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 Washington, D.C. Richard, hi, you're on the Rush program with Tom Sullivan.
Hey, Tom, how are you?
Doing great.
Listen, I had two topics to cover with you.
One is the use of the word rubber.
I can only make one of three conclusions, and that is that you either haven't gotten any in a long time, happily married, or you've given up entirely.
Has it been that long?
That's very vintage of you.
Thank you.
Your engineers must have been gagging on that one.
They were.
In fact, Mamone tells me they sell them in the grocery store now, and I said to him, I haven't been in a grocery store in 30 years.
Why would I know that?
I don't think they call them rubbers anymore.
Okay, all right.
On the legislation, you know, obviously, like most people, I haven't read the entire set of documents.
But I've got to say that this is one case.
I'm a pretty staunch conservative, and this is one case where I think that it's not such a terrible thing.
I'm all for capitalism, supply and demand economics.
But yeah, I don't think that this is a terrible thing.
I don't either.
I don't either.
It's just that it's odd.
They're trying to solve everything with just that, and that alone won't do it.
That's my problem with that.
I think that, you know, you're probably looking at 5% or less, maybe 1% of the issue.
Clearly, other things need to be done to relieve dependency on foreign oils and things like that.
I'm all for cutting up Alaska.
That's fine.
That would do the job.
But, you know, granted, it's not comprehensive.
But, you know, 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 what the Republicans will say, when it's clearly not the right thing to be saying.
I'll give you an example.
One of the recent Democratic debates where they were asked if English should be the language of the country, yeah.
Right, yeah.
And you had one of nine people, Mike Gravel, raising his hand.
And the others just looked at each other, like, what should we say about this?
Come on.
Yes.
They all know that the answer is yes.
Yes.
Although, that's another one of those meaningless pieces of legislation.
You know what the one of the states that has in its Constitution that the language of the state will be English?
Constitution 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.
Why are they spending your tax dollars on helping some kid pay back his school loans when he's going to 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 Erie, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Joe.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Tom Sullivan.
Hey, Tom, how are you doing?
Doing great.
Definitely one of my favorite substitute teachers.
Thank you.
And you'll run circles around me here on economic policy, but I'll give you a college student loan taker view on why I think it's a good idea.
If you, let's say the government floats me a low-interest loan, and therefore it's a subsidy.
If they floated the same as the market, they'd be making some pretty decent money, I think, on it.
If you look back at how Reagan set up his policy, supply side, I would say that's an investment.
I mean, I'm going to, if my income in theory is higher than the national average, in fact, much higher, I'm going to return that investment in not only income tax, but in sales tax and goods.
Great.
So 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 the lower tax base in time, whatever that time is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I understand that whole theory.
Here's the thing about it, though.
Here's the way that student loans should work: is that instead of the government giving you money, what they do is that 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 makes the money off of you.
And we stand in the corner and say we'll support him if he fails.
And that's probably one of the ways to do it.
But as they continue to keep adding more to the pile of concern about your future, I'm going, you have a bright future if you get a degree.
And I think you'll make that investment whether I help you or not.
I agree.
I agree.
However, I mean, just say, I mean, you know, time value money as good as any finance guy, is if I'm able to get through college in four years by a loan, and I think that I think the government does that with Citibank.
In fact, I know they do as far as backing the loan.
Is if I can start making that income earlier, you know, instead of going to night school, instead of working three jobs and taking eight, 10 years to get through undergrad, it's a time value.
I'm not, hey, I'm all with you.
I'm like the rest of America that looks at our, especially today's Congress and shrugs their shoulders and kind of looks in disgust.
But hey, the last point is most, I think if you, I don't know.
I'm going to guess, though, and just off my own data, is most kids getting student loans are middle income, not low income.
In total numbers, not just because I suspect your guess is a pretty good guess.
Okay.
And who gets squeezed the worst?
In the U.S., it's the middle income.
My parents made enough money for us to get by.
They didn't make enough money for me to pay college, but they made too much money for me to get financial aid.
You got it?
I mean, you know what I mean?
I found my own student loans.
So what are you doing?
Do you have a job?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I'm an old guy.
Yeah, I did the same thing.
I came from a low-income household.
I mean, my folks did not have any money.
So I had to pay for college.
I had to go to work.
So I don't know.
I think it made something, it made me better.
Oh, I completely agree.
You know, it's one of those things where don't give me the whole mount.
Give me enough where I still got to bust my butt in college, but enough to get through it.
Well, I agree with you that all the aid goes to the very low end.
And I suppose that's probably where we should is to 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 are somehow not able to financially keep food on the table roof over their head.
I'm willing to help them, but there's all kinds of charitable ways to do it in addition to the government.
Government has got their nose into, they're becoming a nanny state, and they're getting their nose into everything.
So I just want 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, 800-282-2882.
I'm Tom Sullivan.
This is Rushman Baugh's program.
Welcome back.
Tom Sullivan in for a rush.
I was just watching this report about the video game addiction.
You hear this?
There's a video game.
They're calling it now.
They're treating it as a disorder.
That's another thing.
Everything is a disorder now.
Whatever you do, if you're odd, if you're different, if you do something wrong, there's a, well, he has a disorder.
He has, for example, the members of Congress, they have a, I know how to live your life better than you do disorder.
We should treat them.
Bill in Bergen County, New Jersey.
Hi, Bill.
Sure.
Hi there.
Thanks for taking my call.
I heard the mayor Bloomberg on the radio this morning.
Yeah.
And I'm convinced now that he doesn't plan to run for president.
But I think by becoming an independent, it makes him free and able to endorse Hillary if the time comes for that.
Not that he would endorse Hillary.
I lost your line of thinking there because 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 candidate for president, assuming it wasn't Ruby, I think there'd be 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 joins them at climate conferences.
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 appreciate the fact that you're you know the mayor better than I do, but I thought it was in New York.
No, but you know, you're in the New York media market, so you know what he's doing and how the public's reacting to him.
No, I understand.
But he's he may want to run for vice president, and he didn't get the vice presidential candidate on either side.
With who?
With who?
Not with Hillary, but if the guy in Massachusetts gets it, or the guy in North Carolina gets the, what's his name?
The guy with the haircuts.
If he becomes the president of the presidential campaign.
Oh, the Brett girl, John Edwards?
John Edwards.
Yeah, he could become his vice presidential candidate.
He couldn't be Hillary's.
I understand that.
They're both in New York.
But I don't think he wants to get out of politics.
I think he enjoys it too much.
You know, it's a late move in his life, and he enjoys this better than the business world.
Yeah, no question about it.
There's no question that he likes this, but I'll bet you a large lunch at a drive-up window, Bill, that he runs.
Okay, well, I'll take it.
I'll be glad to see you.
It's got to be one of the cheap joints.
I don't want to spend a lot on this.
Steven Little Rock.
Hi, Steve.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Tom Sullivan.
I appreciate it.
Comment on student tuition.
I'm a truck driver.
I don't make a lot of money in that $50,000, $55,000 range.
Yeah.
Son and daughter, 18 years old, graduate from high school.
They're supposed to be adults.
Yes, they can drink, but they're supposed to be adults.
They're on their own.
Yeah, yeah.
They go to get their student loans.
How much does dad make?
Oh, that's too much money.
He's going to have to pay.
You know what?
No, no, no.
Wait a minute.
A student loan or a student grant?
Not a grant.
I'm sorry, grant.
Yeah, because a grant is where they give your kids money, and they're going, I'm not going to give you money when your dad makes $55,000.
And quite bluntly, I understand that.
Now, a loan.
And another point is two children instead of just one.
Well, you follow what I'm saying there.
That brings me back to the contraceptive conversation.
Sure.
You need to get on that federal program.
Yes, sir.
No, I hear you.
You have two, three kids.
You go out there and 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 the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Tom Sullivan setting in for Rush.
Next hour, we're going to talk about Big Labor gets a big payback from the members of Congress.
It's unbelievable the secret ballot they're doing away with or trying to.
Larry in Indiana.
Hi, Larry.
You got about a minute.
Hi, Dittos, and please pass that to the gray one.
Sure will.
Thanks.
You've got really good liberals that finance their entire college education with student loans, graduate with a jet load of $60,000 to $70,000, 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 their student loans, and they're screaming for government help.
Yeah, there's that too.
And 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 their business.
Why should I pay for that?
I don't see the logic behind it at all.
I just think it's one of those extra spending programs that I think is just a waste of time.
But we've got more.
Again, when we come back, we're going to talk about this the union wants to do with away with the secret ballot.
Can you imagine anybody promoting that?
Big union is?
▲
Export Selection