All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
October 9, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, now documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time, we jumped a full one-tenth of a percentage point in the accuracy rating during the smear campaign of Media Matters and Dingy Harry and Tom Harkin.
An emergency update from our auditing firm in Sacramento, the Sullivan Group.
Greetings and great to have you with us in the fastest three hours in media.
I'm Rush Lindboy, as you know, a well-known radio rack and tour, general all-round good guy at 800-282-2882.
Well, this is just getting hilarious now.
Every citizen could get a 401k retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered today by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a cost of $20 billion to $25 billion a year.
The plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health care.
She said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.
At the same time, Mrs. Clinton said that she's given up another idea for a savings incentive, giving every baby born in the country a $5,000 account to one day pay for college or a first home.
She made that suggestion last month before the Congressional Black Caucus, saying it was just an idea, not a policy proposal.
The idea was criticized by Republicans, she told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published Tuesday, it's now off the table.
I wonder why it's off the table.
Why all of a sudden would $5,000 per baby born in America be off the table?
Well, I don't really know.
I could guess that that would open the floodgates to people.
So, well, wait a minute, if $5,000 in my account from the moment I'm born is going to lead to all these wonderful things, how come we can't privatize a portion of my Social Security and invest it the same way?
Hmm.
I would bet you a dollar to a donut, that's why she pulled it.
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut.
It's because I offered that very analysis of it is why she pulled it.
Because if you get $5,000 the moment you're born and you put it in a bank or put it somewhere where it's invested and it's supposed to lead to all these wonderful things, a big new house and a college degree and so forth, why I guess it doesn't matter that the market goes up and down and you won't lose your money like they said you might.
And I guess it doesn't matter that $5,000 given to your babies when they're born would enrich stockbrokers and asset managers.
That's what all the criticisms they mounted with the privatization of a portion of Social Security contributions.
I think we beat that back there, folks.
No wonder that smear happened.
So now it's a simple 401k, which is already in existence, already has proven to be popular, already an investment vehicle.
So she lied to the CBC.
She lied.
Yep, I'm positive it's not the 401k and the 5,000.
She says it's off the table.
Soon as she told it to the Congressional Black caucus, it was off the table.
She got the message out to them.
She left the room, and she pulled it off the table.
All right, audio soundbite time.
We've got a roster here.
I haven't used a whole lot of them today, but here we go.
We're going to go back to September 27th in Oxford, Mississippi, University of Mississippi.
There was a forum with Senator Trent Lott and Senator Tom Dashle, and the title of the forum was Senate Leaders Working Together, which always leads to Republicans losing.
They didn't call it that, I added it.
And here's a portion of Senator Lott's remarks about his support of the amnesty bill.
I learned a lesson.
I got clobbered by name.
Some of my close friends, Rush Limbaugh, and they really worked me over really good.
And then I wandered out into the hall in front of the Senate chamber.
Tom and I tripped into that before.
And I said something to the fact that we've got to do something about this talk radio problem.
Man, my phones were jammed.
What did I mean?
Had two threats to take me out completely, one of which we turned over to the FBI.
Oh, love people that remind people how many death threats they get.
Here's the second bite, another portion of Senator Lott's remarks.
What I was trying to say, though, was they were not telling the story as I viewed it.
And I thought we needed to do something about talk radio by talking to them and explaining what we were trying to do.
We came out and said, we have a grand compromise.
I think that's what we call it.
Grand solution.
Republicans and Democrats, moderates, conservatives, liberals.
We got a deal.
And then we went home to celebrate.
But we didn't bother to say what was in it.
Rush Limbaugh said, this is amnesty.
We were dead at that moment because they had a one-word bumper sticker, amnesty.
And we had a six-paragraph explanation.
We got killed.
So talk radio has a real impact.
And I think they have a role.
I would never be a part of trying to shut up either side.
This is America.
We do have free speech.
Everybody's entitled to their point of view.
Not for long.
Not for long, Senator Lott.
If the Democrats win the White House and keep control of the Congress, we are all not going to have free speech rights.
We all don't have them now because of McCain Feingle.
By the way, back to this Hillary story.
One thing I forgot to mention about her new scheme to pull the $5,000 per baby off the table and replace it with a 401k retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government.
They already do that.
Well, no, the government doesn't.
The employer does.
Whatever.
How she's going to pay for this is taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple.
How many programs has she proposed where she's going to pay for it by taxing the rich?
I think she's taxed them into poverty with all of her proposals.
I mean, she's going to tax them for health care.
She's going to tax them for the 401k plan.
She's going to tax the rich for virtually every program she could, because what she's doing is playing the class envy card.
She is sitting here suggesting that she wants to narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor and the middle class and so forth.
And she wants to do it by taking everybody's money and redistributing it, which sounds suspiciously like this asinine column I read to you yesterday from Sunday's New York Times by this guy named Robert Frank.
Speaking of the rich, ladies and gentlemen, there's a story from Reuters.
The surge in a number of millionaires in the world is spawning a fast-growing industry, wealth psychology.
U.S. wealth managers are adding services such as psychological counseling for wealthy clients to set them apart from the competition, according to experts.
Some of these psychologists handle clients who feel guilty about inheriting wealth.
Others help with problems such as how to raise children in an environment where almost anything can be bought or intervene when spouses fight over money.
Yeah, one of the biggest concerns when people become significantly wealthy is how am I going to raise my kids responsibly with all this money, psychologist and consultant James Grubman told Reuters at the Wealth Management Summit in Boston.
Grubman, who works with rich clients of Wachovia, the fifth biggest U.S. wealth management company, predicted that within 10 years, most financial management firms will offer psychological services.
That's his affluenza.
The more cutting-edge wealth management firms and banks are beginning to realize they need to get people available and in-house.
The wealth management division of Wells Fargo recently hired two psychologists to meet with its clients and is seeing demand for another new service for the wealthy catering to the aging parents of millionaires.
A growing need for a lot of business execs, entrepreneurs, and other people of wealth is somebody to handle some of their parents' needs.
Said Dean Junkins, chief investment officer of Wells Fargo's, you know, the wealth management industry exists to do the wealth management industry exists to take the wealth from the wealthy.
Fees, this sort of thing.
Now psychological counseling for guilt.
I'll tell you what you guys need to start doing.
I think it's actually a fine thing.
I'm only kidding about the fee structure of wealth management.
There's a whole industry out there that's designed to separate the wealthy from their money, and the wealthy don't mind it because they've got it, but it exists.
But the wealth psychology that they should offer is this.
How to deal with being formerly wealthy after Hillary Clinton becomes president.
Because when you lose your wealth is when you're going to need the psychological counseling, not because you've spent it, but because it's been taken from you.
So the real psychological counseling that all of you wealth management asset management people should be thinking about is the psychological counseling to deal with people.
You say to them, you used to be wealthy before Hillary taxed you into poverty.
We are here to help you deal with it.
But then, of course, why would the wealth management people want to offer that kind of counseling when the wealthy will have no money to pay for it?
We'll be back in just a second.
Well, now it's been, I guess, certified medically as official.
A lousy marriage might literally make you sick.
Marital strife and other bad personal relationships can raise your risk for heart disease, researchers reported Monday.
Well, isn't this just peachy keen?
Let's see what else is going to.
They said at one time that fatty foods would cause cholesterol to rise and give you all kinds of heart problems.
That consensus went by the wayside.
Coffee was going to do this.
Smoking, oil, all these things.
Being single was going to cause you to have a heart attack and so forth.
Now they're going out and saying, most people, most people are married or else live together.
And so there's strife.
There's always strife in a relationship.
Show me the relationship where there's no strife and I'll show you this relationship where there's no communication, contact, separate houses and all that.
But even that's rare.
There's strife in every relationship.
And now, in their daily effort to scare everybody into thinking life is going to end tomorrow simply by virtue of you living normally, they have decided to include the biggest group of people possible outside of kids, and that is people who are married.
The experts say here that what it likely boils down to is stress, a well-known contributor to heart problems, as well as a potential byproduct of troubled relationships.
Folks, I don't know about you, but in my opinion, it's impossible not to experience stress.
You can experience stress because you haven't mowed the yard or because the staff hasn't mowed the yard at the right time.
The idea that it's possible to live a stress, I'll bet even the Maharishi Mahesh yogi who has reached cosmic consciousness through transcendental meditation.
I'll bet even the Maharishi suffers stress over the fact that others have not reached cosmic consciousness.
So you see, you're dead.
You're cooked.
You were born to die just by living your life normally.
You may as well vote for Hillary and be as happy as you can before you die.
You die penniless anyway.
You have to worry about who's going to inherit it.
This study, by the way, was in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, follows previous research that has linked health problems with being single and having few close relationships.
In the new study, researchers focused more on the quality of marriage and other important relationships.
So what we add here is that, okay, being married is in general good, but be careful about the kind of person you've married.
No, shouldn't it be be careful about the kind of person you intend to marry?
Because once you've married the person, how can you be careful about it?
It's already done.
The quality of the relationship matters, said lead author Roberto Di Vogli, a researcher with the University College in London.
This is a big problem.
People have no clue what the spouse is going to be after they get married.
Very rarely does the person you marry, male or female, turn out to be the same person after you've sanctified the whole thing.
There are a lot of people out there that never let you know who they really are until they have hooked you.
And then they think, okay, I've hooked the person.
Now I can be who I really am.
It happens out there, folks.
Trust me on this, I know.
Ending a bad marriage is not necessarily the answer, though, it says here, given evidence that being unmarried could also be a risk.
So you're in a rotten marriage.
It's causing stress levels to rise.
You're going to have a heart attack.
But no, don't get out of the marriage necessarily because being unmarried could also be a risk.
So we're fried.
We're literally fried.
All right, to the phones, Marty in Northern Virginia.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yeah, thanks, Rush.
Yeah.
Hey, I just had to call when I heard your comment about how the Republican candidates need to energize the base.
I mean, I like your idea of calling attention to the liberal media bias, but when you got a leader of the Christian right saying they should form a third political party, that's the real problem.
I mean, you know.
You're talking about Dr. Dobson?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, he doesn't want McCain.
He doesn't want Thompson.
He doesn't want Giuliani.
And he won't admit it, but he doesn't want Romney because of his religious bigotry.
I mean, I'm depressed Newt's not running, too.
But it's, you know, forget about the Hispanic voters, the welfare lobby, any other special interest.
It's going to be the cut-and-run Republicans who are going to screw us next year, just like they did last year.
I'm laughing at your manner of expression, not what you've said.
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, no, no, it's fine.
I enjoy callers that make me laugh.
So you did good.
Well, one more thing.
I got to interrupt you.
Listen, I read, I don't know if it was Newsmax or Human Events today that Al Gore might run if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
I think you ought to make a commitment that if you win the prize, you'll run.
Yeah, we're back to this.
If I win the Nobel Peace Prize, I run for president.
That's the deal, huh?
Yeah, make that a promise.
All right.
I'll promise you, right?
If I win the Nobel Peace Prize, I will run for president.
Great.
I'm energized.
There you go.
Okay.
Just printed something from the printer here from the computer is relative to your point.
For people that are unfamiliar with what the Dobson position is, could you replay it for them?
Tell them what it is.
Me?
You, yeah.
Well, my understanding is he says I heard that he doesn't want McCain.
He doesn't want Thompson.
He doesn't want Juliana.
He won't admit that he doesn't want Romney, but he says we've got to start a third party.
That's going to hurt us.
Yeah, but do you hear why he said this?
What his reasoning is?
Well, I don't know, but I mean, what I'm saying is I'm empathetic, not sympathetic.
I'm empathetic to that because I'm disappointed with him, too.
I wanted Newt, but, you know, I'm not dumb enough to say, let's start a third party.
Well, here's his reasoning on this, as I've had it explained to me.
Allow me some variants here to be not quite accurate about this because I've heard this secondhand.
But I think one of the things that Dr. Dobson has said is that he's frustrated with a Republican nominee who might be president who is not really down the road what we want, but you can't criticize them.
Once they're in office, you're stuck with them and you can't criticize them.
And you end up supporting somebody you know is not right.
Then you're saddled with them and you can't do anything about it because they're on your team.
So his theory is it'd be much better, as I understand this, to have somebody like Mrs. Clinton who is what she is and represents exactly what we don't want to allow an opportunity for open criticism in a way of educating the American people about what they've done and who they've elected and so forth for future elections.
I'm paraphrasing this.
The thing, you know, to Dr. Dobson and a lot of the Christian leaders, there's a single word here that animates them, and that's abortion.
And the problem that we have with the presidency is that there's only one thing a president can do to affect abortion, and that's Supreme Court nominees.
Absolutely.
That's the only thing a president can do.
So the emphasis on a president's pro-life views or pro-choice views in the case of Rudy has to be balanced with what he has said about the kind of people he'll put on the court.
And he said he would put people like Scalia Alito Thomas Roberts as nominees, which would be satisfactory to people.
I got to run because I'm, as you hear the ear-splitting tone, out of time.
Back here in a second.
Okay, see what you think of this.
On a Washington Post blog, Call the Morning Cheat Sheet, there is a report on a recent speech made by Dan Bartlett, who was one of the president's top aides, closest advisors in the communications office.
He has a brutally candid analysis of the Republican nomination battle.
Fred Thompson is the campaign's biggest dud.
Mitt Romney has a real problem in the South because people will not vote for a Mormon there.
Mike Huckabee's last name is Tu Hick.
And John McCain could end up repeating 2000 by winning New Hampshire, but losing the nomination.
Bartlett stepped down as a White House counselor in July after working nearly his entire adult life for Bush.
He gave these frank assessments during a recent appearance before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that went unnoticed outside the room.
Never before has Bartlett opened up in a public setting with such an unvarnished analysis of the race.
And while he no longer formally speaks for the president, Bartlett spent 14 years channeling Bush and remains his virtual alter ego.
So his views could be seen as revealing a look into the thinking within the president's interest.
Well, that's a big leap.
What a leap that is.
So this is actually Bush talking.
Bartlett was harshest in his judgment of Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who jumped into the contest a month ago and faces his first televised debate today.
Thompson, Bartlett said, was the biggest dud because he peaked last spring when he first started talking about running, and since then has yet to articulate a compelling vision for why he's running.
The biggest liability was whether he had the fire in the belly to run for office in the first place and be president, Bartlett said.
So what does he do?
He waits four months.
He fires a bunch of staff.
He hires a big staff turnover, has a lot of backbiting, comes out with his big campaign launch, gives everybody very incoherent, not very concise stump speech for why he's running for president.
Now, let me see.
Sympathetic to McCain.
Let's see what he said about Huckabee.
Yeah, his last name sounds like Hick.
Doesn't have a chance.
The Bush advisor was most enthusiastic about a contender who seems to have even less chance.
He called Huckabee the best candidate, one who seems to most mirror Bush's own vision of compassionate conservatism.
He's the most articulate, visionary candidate of anybody in the field.
He was perplexed, he said initially, that Huckabee was running.
But the more I watch him, the more impressed I become.
When it comes to advocating conservative positions on social issues, he does it in a very positive way.
But Huckabee can't win, Bartlin said.
He's got the obvious problems.
He's from Hope, Arkansas, quite frankly, having a last name Huckabee.
I hate to be so light about it, but it's an issue.
Politics can be fickle like that.
I mean, you're trying to get somebody's attention for the first time.
Huckabee, you got to be kidding me.
Hope, Arkansas, here we go again.
Huckabee just sounds too hicky.
The only top-tier candidate, aha, the only top-tier candidate Dan Bartlett did not criticize was Rudy Giuliani, whom he credited with the best message, particularly because the former New York mayor has kept his focus on attacking Democrats, not fellow Republicans.
He's doing it particularly well with Hillary.
There was headlines the other day.
He wants to engage in this debate.
There's a very practical aspect of it because he's engaged with the Democrats.
Well, I must say that doesn't surprise me that they would have the most praise in terms of winnability and electability for Rudy Carroll in Waldorf, Maryland.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
I just wanted to share with you that when we lived in Sicily from 95 to 98, you were not on the radio then, and we had found your show when we lived in Guam, and we had dinner around.
We planned our dinner hours where our two teenage children could watch it with us.
Then when we went to Italy, we were kind of disappointed because we couldn't get you.
But then we found out there was a group of people.
Somebody's mother sent her your shows, and we would have a dinner and just share, you know, sit down, and it would be the Rush Limbaugh night out for all of us.
And it was kind of, you know, a behind-the-scenes thing.
Nobody wanted to let anybody know we were doing it.
But it was, that's the only way we could get you.
So I hope that they don't take that one hour of, you know, some sanity that those soldiers, sailors, and Marines, everybody gives you.
Well, you know, here's the interesting thing about them.
Two points.
The Democrats want to take me off Armed Forces Radio, and they've wanted to do it since, well, 2004 is when the first of the two recent efforts was begun by Senator Harkin, being spawned once again by Media Matters for America.
The objective back then was actually to get liberal talk radio on Armed Forces Radio.
Congress does not determine who's on Armed Forces Radio.
The Pentagon does.
In my case, I ended up on Armed Forces Radio because the Pentagon took a poll of military personnel overseas and said, What do you want to hear that we don't have?
And I won the poll.
I won the as a write-in.
I was not on the list of programs that were not presently being offered or at present being offered.
I won in a write-in.
And the Secretary of Defense at the time, Lynn Les Aspen, responded to the pressure, and he was over at the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense, and he put the one hour, the first hour of the program on.
Now, we come forward to the smear of last week, and the effort here is now to start pressure, of course, the fairness doctrine, to get me off of Armed Forces Radio.
Now, that's an interesting proposition because let me ask you: the soldiers, military personnel wanted me in a write-in campaign in 1994, 5, whatever it was.
In ensuing years, those in Armed Forces Radio who have listened to me have heard nothing but 100% total support, love, appreciation.
Why would a bunch of Democrats want to take that off of Armed Forces Radio so that military personnel could not hear a supportive, appreciative voice?
Well, I truly feel that it's just another morale buster.
I mean, the one time they hear somebody that's supporting them, I mean, what we did get over there because we got a lot of NPR and mess like that.
24-7 NPR is on.
Huh?
It's on 24-7 over there.
Not just an hour of it.
It's on all day.
Right.
And but like I said, when they need that, they need that to hear that, that what they're doing.
I was online with my son, who's actually in Afghanistan, and he even said, yeah, they want to take him off because they think that he's just making us all a bunch of right-wingers.
And I went back and I said, yeah, but most of you volunteers do have some common sense stuff.
And so if they want to say they're right-wingers, who cares?
At least they're hearing somebody that supports them for one time.
Well, that's see, I think your son's got it half right.
They are worried that these people, uniform military personnel, might be converted to conservatism.
But the idea to take a supportive voice away from them, that's what speaks volumes.
You can say that they want to harm the morale or what have you, and it certainly doesn't know if it would do that, but they certainly do want to deprive military personnel overseas of a voice for one hour a day that is supportive.
Democrats do.
Democrats do.
So you have to assume that they want some sort of harm to come to the military.
They're afraid of something here.
Probably your son's right about being persuaded.
Who knows?
But it's because they can't compete.
You know, they got some liberals on Armed Forces Radio.
Nobody cares.
I mean, do you think the troops actually want to get up and listen every day to some liberal bashing them as a bunch of rapists and murderers and so forth and listening to tapes and soundbites of Jack Murthy played over and over and over again?
Now, why would Democrats, why would anybody in the U.S. government want American troops to hear that stuff?
It's perverse.
It is sick.
But that's the deal.
Well, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate the story, Carol.
Thanks much to While Missing Pennsylvania, it is.
It's Bill.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, Raj.
How are you doing?
God bless you.
And don't run for office.
We need you to do what you're doing.
I appreciate that.
You're doing well.
Understanding, sir.
And I want to go back to Iraq.
All hinges on whether or not I win a Nobel Peace Prize Friday because I made a promise just mere moments ago.
Well, if you win it, I'll vote for you.
Okay.
I didn't say when I would run.
I just said I would run.
Now that the drive-by phony media has reduced its Iraq coverage and the Democrats seem to be trying to get it off the table, and that means we're winning, and obviously we are.
You just don't see it in the papers nowadays.
My question for you, as an expert opinion, would be, when do you think the public in general will recognize the win?
And when will President Bush approval numbers finally reflect that and increase to be reflective of a winner?
And then importantly, begin to play as a positive on the table for the Republicans in the presidential race and the congressional race next year.
I don't think it's going to happen that soon.
I don't think Iraq is going to be a number one or even number two election issue next year, precisely because of what you said at the beginning of the call.
Surge is working.
We're winning.
But more than that, the Democrat presidential candidates have all said we're not pulling out of there by 2013, regardless which candidate, if a Democrat wins, they've all said, no, I can't commit to doing that.
So they failed to get their resolutions passed.
What they were trying to do was saddle defeat around President Bush's neck.
It has failed.
They're taking the Iraq issue off the table because it's a loser for them.
It's not because we're winning.
I mean, that's, I guess, a factor, but it's a losing issue for them, and they know it.
The position they have on Iraq is un-American.
It's why Hillary Clinton will not adopt that position as a Democrat presidential candidate.
It's why the Democrat presidential candidates who do adopt that, like Kucinich and others, don't even score an asterisk.
Despite the so-called power and influence of the Democrat Party base, the people on that Democrat presidential rostrum that reflect their views haven't a prayer.
Iraq is a losing issue.
So it's off the table.
The press is taking it off the table because they don't want to embarrass the Democrats with it.
Regardless what happens in Iraq, President Bush is not going to get due credit or a proper analysis, historical analysis, until this generation is long gone and dead.
The people that write the history of today are going to write what the press has been writing about Iraq for the last four to five years.
Historians who are not even yet born, who are recently born and are infants, who don't even know they're going to be historians yet.
We'll look back on this, and it'll be accurately written about, or at least more accurately written about than today.
But not ⁇ I don't think President Bush's approval numbers are going to be significantly enhanced by whatever happens in Iraq, particularly in the sense of influencing the elections, unless something so unexpected happens, such as al-Qaeda surrendering or a set of pictures of a rebuilding Iraq and a happy Iraq and the enemy in disarray.
It's going to take something like that for there to be an immediate impact in the next 13 months.
But since the issue of Iraq is not going to be a paramount campaign issue, mark my words on this.
I don't think the approval numbers on it are going to be a factor.
Got to run?
After this, I got an email here from a guy named Mort Nkiakuk, and he has sent me a story from the Houston Chronicle.
Mort's not happy.
Here's the story.
Taco Bell is going to open a restaurant in Mexico.
They used to have restaurants in Mexico.
I guess this is the first time in 15 years that they're going to reopen a restaurant in Mexico.
Defenders of Mexican culture see the change re-entry as a crowning insult to a society already overrun by Starbucks, Subway, and Kentucky fried chicken.
You can add Taco Bell to the list in Mexico.
Mort's note is, see, your glorious free trade policies have now shipped our hamburger flipper jobs down to Mexico, too.
Hope you're happy sitting in your mansion.
Rosemarie, Staten Island, I'm glad you caught one.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
I called Henry Waxman's office first thing this morning, and I asked, I told him I wanted to ask a question.
He said, okay, and I asked him if they believed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and freedom of speech.
He says to me, is this a reference to some talk show hosts?
I said, yes.
He said, it's a rumor.
We're trying to find out how it got started.
It's not true.
It's a rumor.
That's what he told me.
It's a rumor.
It's a rumor, and they're trying to track down the rumor and how it got started.
Yes.
Hmm.
Well, it was in the American Spectator yesterday in a column called The Prowler.
And there were some quotes from Democrat staffers, unnamed, I think, in the Senate.
I'd have to look at that, who's pretty much supported the notion that Congressman Waxman's investigators are going to be pouring over transcripts and looking for any irregularities on this program and Sean Hannity's and Mark Levin's.
Did you happen to believe this denial?
No.
That didn't take you long.
No.
I wouldn't believe anything they had to say.
I love you.
A lot of good their office is doing.
Constituents.
Well, you're not a constituent because he's from California, L.A. Hollywood is one of his districts.
You know, he's got a partner, Howard Berman.
The Berman Waxman California machine is well, well known.
Well, that's great, Rosamarie.
I appreciate that.
Waxman's office denies it, says it's a rumor.
She didn't believe it for a moment.
We were misrepresented.
Yeah, that's another caller today said that they said we were misrepresented.
And this is a rumor, and that we're trying to track it down that it isn't true.
That is a denial.
Here's Carl in Tampa.
Carl, nice to have you there.
About a minute left.
I wanted to get to you.
Okay, I'll make it quick then.
That $10,000 or the $5,000 that Hillary was going to give to the kid?
Yeah.
Not only would they make money off of it, but they'd also wind up in debt unless we changed the present tax code.
Because at the end of each year, they have to pay taxes on the interest earned on that $10,000.
So you give that to a baby that's born and he doesn't receive it till he's 19 years old.
Imagine the interest that's accumulated that you have to pay taxes on.
Yeah, that's how the governor would get some of it back.
That's a good point.
I hadn't thought of that, Carl, because I was so focused on the inanity of the idea in general.
Yeah, and then does it go into a trust fund, or how do you keep the parents from touching it so that all of us don't lie and over?
No, That's that.
If the parents touch it, it's because the parents were growing broke because of previous Republican policies, and they had no choice but to touch it.
It'll be replaced.
Well, I'm looking to get that widescreen kiki like you got.
So, you know, that money will come in handy real quick.
It's available, easy access.
All I got to do is have another kid, and then I can get the stereo to go with it.
That's exactly.
Keep having kids.
That's right.
And eventually you can buy a mansion.
You know it.
And have a place to put them.
It's been a good one, Rush.
Enjoy listening to you.
It has, Carl.
Well, that's it, folks.
I have to take my friendliness, my good nature, and my humility into another room to record some video and then to a super secret meeting.
And then the hairstylist is coming to the mansion for a quick trim for the trip to Philadelphia on Thursday.
But we'll be back here all revved up and ready to go tomorrow for whatever is presented to us.
▲
Export Selection