All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
October 17, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Testing, testing, test.
Sorry to do this, folks.
We can only test certain things I need to test once we go live on the big program here.
Testing compression and a mix-minus test one.
Sounds better today.
I'm sure you didn't touch anything, right?
That's right.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
It's already Wednesday.
Here we are, the middle of the week on the EIB network, and we are up to $65,100 on the Harry Reid smear letter auction at eBay.
We had basically two days and one hour to go.
It'll end at one o'clock on Friday, and it's going to start getting hot and heavy here from now on in, as I'm sure the wise big money in terms of auction participants.
They wait till the last minute to get in so as not to bid the price up.
And so we'll just keep a sharp eye on this.
Don't forget, free copies, copies of the Harry Reid letter are available at rushlimbaugh.com.
Just, it's a four-page PDF file.
Just have to download it and make it available to whoever you want.
It's full color if you can find a color printer.
Also, the eBay link, if you don't know this, is at rushlimbaugh.com.
We got a little widget there on the homepage.
It shows you the status of the auction.
Anyway, great to be back.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, question.
Can anyone who is smeared by Harry Reid on one issue and smeared by Nancy Pelosi on another issue be all that bad?
Listen to this.
For those who have chosen to make an attack on a family which has benefited from S-CHIP by impugning their good intentions and their integrity is beneath the dignity of this debate.
Hate Radio has made a vicious attack on the Frost family, a family which is involved in a very serious automobile accident, injuring two of its children who are S-CHIP recipients.
Yeah, that's the point.
They're already S-CHIP recipients.
You got them out there claiming they wouldn't get covered unless Bush gave you what you want.
The current program covered this family.
By the way, I need to apologize here to Michelle Malkin.
Michelle Malkin is actually the one who first dug up, I think Michelle was the first, to dig up the financial truth about the Frost family.
But Pelosi smearing me.
I'm sorry, sorry, Michelle, for hogging the credit from you.
I had nothing to do with this.
I did not call Pelosi's office, say, please, please, please hit me.
But if you go back and if you listen to the bite here, impugning their good intentions and their integrity.
What has Ms. Pelosi and her party been doing to the military personnel serving in Iraq for the past four years?
Impugning their integrity and their good intentions.
And of course, what did that do to the dignity of the debate?
The debate over the war in Iraq.
At Hate Radio, nobody made a vicious attack on the Frost family.
Ms. Pelosi, there was no attack.
This is what I mean by these people, liberals, cannot flourish unless they have a monopoly.
They would love to be able to make you believe that the Bush administration doesn't want kids like the Frost kids to get help when they already got it from the very program.
The president dealt with this at a press conference today.
He said, look, 500,000 poor kids are not presently covered.
I want to increase the bill so that those 500,000 are covered.
Big deal.
That's what it is.
It's a poor children's health care bill.
Ms. Pelosi wants everybody to believe that hate radio is destroying these.
Well, hate radio.
She means me.
Let's be honest here.
You know it and I know it.
But we didn't attack the family.
We just informed people who the family is.
And that's what they can't deal with.
They can't deal with truth.
They can't deal with facts.
They present these little shows parading kids or seasoned citizens around or whoever.
And in the old days, they used to get away with that.
Now, when they bold-face lie and misrepresent things, people are here to call them on it and they launch out and they branch out and they lash out at people like me.
You hateful guy.
Why?
We're not attacking anybody, Ms. Pelosi.
We are simply demonstrating that you don't tell the truth about things.
And boy, there's nothing when you expose liberal lies, which is something we could do all day because that's what liberal liberalism is, a lie, folks.
It is a lie.
So let her go ahead and get mad.
Now, I got both of them mad at me, Pelosi and Dingy Harry.
By the way, John Gibson, who has done great work on this whole Dingy Harry thing with Media Matters and the Smear Litter, he talked to J.D. Hayworth on the big story with John Gibson on the Fox News channel yesterday.
And Gibson said that Rush says this has not happened before with the Senate, where 41 senators have called out a private citizen for saying something.
Is he right about that?
As far as I know, he's absolutely correct.
And who am I to dispute El Rushbo?
Because I will tell you, Rush is proving again that just what Babe Ruth meant to baseball back in the 20s and 30s, Rush Limbaugh means to broadcasting in the here and now, specifically talk radio.
And I will tell you, in the pantheon of political/slash public relations jujitsu, this is the single greatest counter move in political and public relations history.
It is a master stroke.
Thank you, J.D. He's talking about the posting of Dingy Harry's letter on the eBay site and auctioning it off with the proceeds going to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, of which I'm a board member and a contributor, and I've raised money for them and so forth.
So thanks very much, JD.
I've been told by some friends that I probably need to address something semantically because it's not a big deal, but it's worth clarifying for those who are confused about it.
Because I have gotten some emails.
What do you mean you're a private citizen?
What do you mean when the Senate attacks you, a private citizen?
You're a public figure.
You are one of the most well-known, recognized names in the country, in the history of the world.
Why in the world, how do you call yourself a private citizen?
And I can understand how some might think this.
But within the context of the relationship between government, the public sector, and me, a private citizen working in a private business in the private sector is regulated by government, which is a frightening thing, and it attests to my courage in taking this on even further.
And it really does.
But I'm not going to say anything more about that.
I'll let you figure that out.
Just because I'm a public figure does not mean that I am not a private citizen in terms of the United States Congress singling out somebody who's not in politics.
I am not running for office.
I don't take any federal money for what I do here.
I've never sought any federal money, grants, state, or what have you.
So in the sense of citizenship, in the sense of civics and the relationship between citizens and government, I'm a private citizen, and they have targeted a private citizen.
You know what this is all about.
I mean, they've targeted ability to do business to harm and impugn my integrity and reputation, as Ms. Pelosi states.
So that's the distinction.
You know, I'm really not the maybe a lone case in terms of individuals, but look at their enemies list.
They target private businesses all the time.
Big oil.
They target Walmart.
They target big food, big fat.
They target all these things in the private sector.
They are statists.
They are socialists.
Here's some amazing numbers for you, folks.
I have this story here.
Come January, Social Security benefits for nearly 54 million Americans are going up 2.3%.
That's the smallest increase in four years.
It will mean an extra $24 a month in the average Social Security recipients check.
Government made this announcement today.
Now, this is a cost of living adjustment.
It means that the monthly benefit for the typical retired worker here in America in 2008 will now go to $1,079 monthly benefit, $1,7 or close to $13,000 a year.
Now, how much does this cost?
Well, I ran the numbers here.
We've got 54 million Social Security recipients.
We have $13,000 a year for each one.
The figure is $702 billion.
Next year, we will spend the federal budget is just over $1 trillion.
Almost one-third of the federal budget is Social Security.
We haven't even talked about Medicaid and Medicare yet.
But just to give you an idea of how powerless the federal government is to provide prosperity, we're talking $13,000 a year, folks.
That's below the poverty level.
That's the average Social Security recipients total annually.
And thanks to Bill Clinton in 1993, some of those earnings are taxed, even though they are money that has been taxed prior.
So $13,000 a year for 54 million people, $702 billion a year.
And a baby boomer is the first one just announced her retirement the other day, and that's going to add a lot to this.
Frightening.
And here's the clincher for me.
$24 a month increased cost of living.
That's nothing.
$24 a month is not a month?
Six bucks a week?
And it's going to cost us $702 billion.
And you think that the federal government can come around and provide everybody with $50,000 a year or come around if it costs almost one-third of the entire federal budget to give 54 million people $13,000 a year.
What does that tell you?
It tells you stop depending on these people for one thing.
Stop depending on it.
Make some plans outside of Social Security.
The second thing is we're not going to be able to afford it at this rate much longer.
The third thing is the amount of money in the budget and the number of people who are now dependent on the federal government, seasoned citizens alone, is an increasing, fast increasing, rapidly increasing number of people.
And at some point it's going to break the bank.
I am just struck by the fact that giving 54 million people an additional $24 a year, a month, a month, is going to cost $702 billion a year.
Mrs. Clinton continues on her quest to win the presidency by buying as many votes as she can.
Here is a portion of statements she made yesterday, the Young Women's Christian Association in Manchester, New Hampshire.
I'll increase funding for the child care development block grant.
I also want to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Right, right.
It currently only covers those firms with 50 or more workers.
I want to lower the threshold to 25 workers.
That will include an additional 13 million Americans.
Right.
Where are we going to get the money to pay for this?
She's already taxed the rich into poverty to pay for previous programs, but I warned you people about this.
Let's go back.
My television show, April 19th, 1994.
Family Leave Act, if you're in a company of 50 employees or more, gives everybody 12 weeks unpaid leave a year to handle emergencies or births of children.
Folks, this is not the end of a problem.
This is only the beginning of a new one.
It isn't going to take long for people to figure out that you can't live for 12 weeks without being paid.
Right.
Can't live for 12 weeks without being paid.
But what Mrs. Clinton said, and I predicted this is all going to happen.
But Mrs. Clinton said a whole lot more than just she wants to expand this to or lower the threshold of businesses to 25 employees.
You can call this the Destroy the Small Business Act of 2008 if she actually proposes this.
Not only does she say she wants to expand the program to include companies that employ at least 25 workers rather than the current 50, what that means is that millions more workers are eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
But remember, there are a lot of people now in the state level already starting to suggest, wait a minute, people can't live for 12 weeks without that check.
We're going to have to start maybe paid leave for a portion of it.
This is how liberalism incrementally wraps its tentacles around you.
She also wants to encourage to develop paid leave programs by offering them $1 billion a year in grants, meaning these businesses.
Paid leave.
It's right in what she said.
We don't have the audio, but it's in the whole proposal.
And a lot of 25 worker companies are going to fire one employee in order to get below the ceiling.
So if you work for a place that's got 25 employees and Mrs. Clinton gets elected, realize that you could soon be cut loose.
But the whole thing doesn't stop there.
Mrs. Clinton wants to require all workers to be given seven sick days a year.
This is in addition to the 12 weeks of leave.
She wants to be able to give everybody be given seven sick days a year that could help to care for the children.
And she also wants to require, require, this is the federal government.
She's never run a business.
She doesn't know what she's talking about here.
Yet we're going to entrust somebody like this who has no clue how to run a business and what is involved in doing so to require businesses that all workers or all employers to at least consider flexible work schedules.
And she also wants to give child care subsidies to stay-at-home parents rather than just families who send their kids to daycare.
That is a ploy to make this appealing to conservatives.
And of course, the question, how does she pay for this?
I just gave you the numbers on how much it's going to cost this country to give $54 million a $24 a month.
Wait, no.
Yeah, $24 a month raise, the Social Security recipient, $702 billion to give 54 million people $24 a month.
$24 a month raise or increase in budget.
Where is she going to get the money to pay for all this?
Well, Russia understands, big business is going to pay for it.
No, big business is not going to pay for it.
They're going to find a way to pay for it where they don't go and hock.
She's never run a business.
He hasn't the slightest idea what she is doing here.
And, well, she does, but she has no idea what she's doing to run a business.
She's just buying votes, pure and simple.
And that is the technique.
Know we've we've been hearing a plethora, ladies and gentlemen, recently of stories about the fat, the obese, the slobs out there, and why they're slobs, why they're fat, why they're obese.
All these different theories abound.
Get this.
Researchers have just, they've thrown in a towel out there.
Headline, this is from Reuters, obesity a result of modern life.
It's just life's fault, folks.
The fact that you are alive explains why you tend to be fat and obese.
Obesity does not result simply from overeating and a lack of exercise, but it is a consequence of modern life, according to a British government think tank.
Yeah, the experts on everything, be it the Brits, be it us, it's the government.
Always the experts.
Weight gain does not result from people's actions, such as overindulgence or laziness alone, and is a far more passive phenomenon than is often assumed, according to foresight.
It found that the technological revolution of the 20th century has led to weight gain becoming unavoidable for the majority of the population because our bodies and biological makeup are out of step with our surroundings.
Oh, we're cooked.
We're fried.
We're broiled.
We're finished.
We have no choice.
It is life, ladies and gentlemen, making us fat, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Unavoidable.
Unavoidable for the majority of the population.
Don't even try.
Don't even try to be disciplined or to get rid of the weight that you really don't wish you were carrying around.
The government of Britain has just offered you a built-in excuse for remaining a slob.
Hey, we've got a new virus out there, a new bacteria that's killing more people in AIDS.
More than 90,000 Americans get potentially deadly infections every year from a drug-resistant staff superbug.
Government reported in its first overall estimate of invasive disease caused by this germ, deaths tied to these infections may exceed those caused by AIDS, said one public health expert, another expert from the government, commenting on the new study.
Tuesday's report shows just how far one form of the staph germ is spread beyond its traditional hospital setting.
The overall incidence rate was about 32 invasive infections per 100,000 people.
That's an astounding figure, said an editorial in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Well, we need a ribbon.
We need a ribbon for this germ.
I mean, we've got the age ribbon.
We've got the breast cancer.
What do we got?
Ribbons for everything.
And you put those ribbons on.
You know what those ribbons are.
I care more than you do if you're not wearing one.
That's what these things all mean.
And this, if this staff, well, we all know Obamacare is.
He doesn't have to wear anything to care.
By the way, you hear what McGala said about Obama?
He's too smart.
He's just too ethereal and too smart.
Obama is, yeah.
So most Democrats are like Bagala.
They don't like smart people.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Great to have you with us here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You ever wondered why men die before women?
You ever wondered why males die before females?
Well, the quick answer is because they want to.
But there is scientific evidence here to suggest that why they want to.
New research suggests that males die before females because of intense competition over sex.
Scientists went back there and they looked at animals and so forth, look at animals that are monogamous, like swans and monges or mongooses, whatever.
And they find that the male in these monogamous species, males and monogamous species naturally compete less over females.
And the polygamous, they compete a lot more.
And so the researchers explain that as competition among males for sex grows more intense, each male on average has less time to breed.
As such, there's no strong incentive to evolve longevity among males and such species.
Now get the last line to this, though.
This is from live science.
Since men age faster and die earlier than women because they want to, these findings suggest that at the time when current human physiology evolved, perhaps around the late Stone Age, polygamous breeding was the norm.
Of course, this doesn't provide any justification for polygamy or promiscuity now for men.
Our Stone Age guys did it, but that's not good.
We can't do it now.
So, yes.
Many affairs.
Honey, a doctor said I should have many affairs, otherwise I'm going to die before you.
The dirty little secret is she wants him to die first, too.
Chuck, Riverside, California.
Great to have you with us, sir, today.
Hello.
Hello.
Good morning.
And mega Dittles to you.
Thank you, sir.
The reason that I'm calling this morning is I was listening to your explanation of the Social Security cost of living increase.
Yeah.
And I think people need to understand that that's a gross figure.
The net figure will be something less than that because you have to pay for your premium for Medicare.
And every year that we get that cost of living increase, the Medicare premium goes up.
So it's not going to be $24.
It'll be something less than.
Right.
But the government payout's going to be $20.
I mean, the taxpayers of this country have got to come up with $702 billion next year to give every Social Security recipient $13,000.
I don't care if it's gross or net.
Let's deal with the gross.
The net is your problem because Clinton raised taxes on a portion of your Social Security.
And of course, your Medicare premiums go up and so forth.
So, yeah, but we're talking gross dollars.
If you got the gross, you'd get 13 grand.
You don't get the, obviously, that's an excellent point because your $13,000 benefit every year is not $13,000 because they tax it and other copays for your Medicare go up.
Yeah, it's a good point.
The point is, we can't afford to keep going like this.
And the idea that some people think that the government can make all of us prosperous and happy and so forth, raising the minimum wage or this sort of thing, it's just, it's ridiculous.
When you stop to think, maybe this only interests somebody like me.
I don't know.
But, you know, as a huge conservative, big believer in reducing the size of small government, promoting self-reliance, rugged individualism, and independence, it is just damn shun.
I know that this is the retired community and that many of you think that the money is coming back to you as your own and you put it in there a long time ago.
We long since passed those days, gang.
It takes four taxes, four workers' taxes, FICA taxes to provide the Social Security benefits for one recipient these days, and that burden is soon going to be three.
So other people are paying this for you.
I know you paid in, but you're getting back far more than you put in, the bottom line.
And baby boomers, really, that's going to be the case.
So when you learn to give 54 million people an additional $24 gross costs one-third of the federal budget, Seems to me there are huge, huge lessons to be learned there.
This is John in Milwaukee.
Thank you for calling, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, give me 60 seconds, and I think I can raise at least a million dollars for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Fund.
Really?
That's pretty ambitious.
Start the clock.
Oh, hang on.
Hang on just a second.
Let me.
Look at the clock here with the glasses on.
I got a little timer here.
We've taken a TikTok out of it because I use this when I record commercials and stuff, so it doesn't make any noise.
But uh-oh.
Stupid thing.
Batteries are going.
Well, I can't do any commercials this afternoon because the battery of this thing isn't working.
Well, I'll go off the clock then.
Right.
Did I turn the iPhone off?
Okay.
I turned on it.
Go ahead.
I'll watch the sweep hand on the broadcast format clock.
Go.
Okay.
I am a federal employee, specifically a letter carrier and a proud member of the National Association of Letter Carriers.
They love me.
As a federal employee, I am involved right now in something called the Combined Federal Campaign.
It's the federal government's, shall we say, united fund campaign.
It's to use federal employee payroll deduction contributions to charitable organizations.
Guess what organization is in this combined federal campaign pamphlet?
MCLEF.
MCLEF.
The Marine Corps. Law Enforcement Foundation is an eligible charity for you federal workers.
That's correct.
And federal workers include Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, and every military active duty and inactive duty member of the services, as well as all postal workers.
And we know from your program, you have a lot of letter carriers listening.
I'm shouting out to you guys that are running bumps, running splits, doing pivots out there.
Get your CFC pamphlet, turn to page 41, donate to 1-0507.
I'm putting $20 a paycheck in.
That's $500 a year.
If we can get 20,000 people to do that, you've got a million bucks.
That's amazing.
10507 is the code number for the MCLEF in your pamphlet.
Right.
Now, look at this is, I have to ask you a question.
Are you redirecting $20 that you already have deducted going somewhere else, or is this a new $20 that you're deducting?
This would be a charitable contribution.
In the past, I've contributed to other groups, but I've kind of taken a scattershot look at the book, pick things that I liked.
You know, I try to look at another thing about MCLEF.
The administrative costs are 0.8%.
99.2% of the pennies of your dollar go to MCLEF.
They don't go to administrative costs to run the program.
So it's a good, solid charity.
And listen, letter carriers, this guy I'm talking to at a phone is the biggest proponent of our military service.
I'm a veteran.
I appreciate him.
And I know everyone out there appreciates him.
Get behind your servicemen.
Get behind this guy on the radio and show your support.
But $20 a week, I challenge you.
Wow, you're going to make me tear up here, John.
But look, I'm just curious.
I need to ask you a question here because I'm trying to figure out the mechanics of this.
Of course.
You are going to tell whoever to deduct $20 per paycheck, which will add up to $500 a year, to go to MCLEF.
And you've asked others to do it, which is wonderful.
But is that $20 that you're going to direct to MCLEF?
Is it $20 you're already directing to another charity, or are you taking a new, brand new $500 out of your pocket this year to do this?
Well, personally, I'm redirecting it.
Okay.
Because in the past, I've given $10 a paycheck to a variety of organizations.
I usually pick four or five out of the book.
You can split your charitable donation to however many charities you want.
In fact, you can just give it all to CFC and they'll spread it equally amongst the thousands of charities that they have.
Or you can pick five or you can pick one.
I've chosen one because I'm 100% behind what you're doing and I want to show solidarity with our troops.
It's a terrific way to do it.
It is.
It's a win-win.
And it doesn't hurt to do it.
$20 out of a paycheck is nothing, man.
Well, for some people, it is something.
You know, that's like Social Security, they're not federal employees, but $20 is their monthly raise.
If they give a dollar, that's $25 a year.
That's exactly.
No, I know.
I'm not trying to talk you out of it.
I'm sitting here in stunned appreciation and amazement.
And it is a brilliant idea, especially when you point out that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have the same opportunity as federal employees.
Exactly.
And there are millions of federal employees, you know, above and beyond the letter carriers that you're appealing to.
There's almost a million postal workers alone.
So, you know.
Just if we just got a buck from every one of them.
Exactly.
Just two bucks.
It would grow exponentially.
Well, look, John, that's great.
I really appreciate it.
Did I meet my goal?
You went over 60 seconds, but that's okay.
I kind of steered you there by asking questions and interrupting.
I think if we would edit me out of the conversation, you probably only bumped it by 30 seconds or so.
Rush, you're great.
I love you.
I love you too, John.
Thanks very much.
I ought to take a quick break here.
Be right back after this.
Bad news, more bad news.
It's all bad news.
If you access the drive-by media, more bad news here for kids.
Get this number, folks.
More than 10,000 children and teenagers go to the hospital every year in the United States.
And when they're there, they run the risk of getting this new germ out there that's wiping us all out.
We need a ribbon for that, I'm telling you.
So they, because 25% of people get it, get it in the hospital.
Hospitals got more germs running around in there because everybody in there is sick.
So these kids, 10,000 children and teens go to the hospital every year for falling off or crashing their bicycles.
And in the process, they rack up $200 million in hospital fees.
This, according to research experts, yesterday, they estimated that 10,700 children are hospitalized annually for a bicycle-related injury with an average day of three days.
And too few appear to have been wearing helmets.
Estimated 500,000 bike-related injuries are treated in emergency departments each year in this country, with 10,000 of them needing to go to the hospital.
We need bike chip.
These kids, do we know that they can afford these three-day stays in the hospital?
Missing from this story, by the way, I think the whole story.
So what?
Is this new?
I rode a bike.
Remember when I learned to ride a bike?
My dad took me over to local high school and ended up scraping the knuckles on my right hand on the brick wall of the high school as I was learning to balance myself.
Just stop crying.
If you don't want to hit the side of the wall, balance.
This is part of teaching me how to ride the bicycle.
Never once thought of going to hospital.
Nor do we think of calling a reporter and say, guess what?
My son was just in a little accident riding a bike.
You want to put it in your new figures you're going to put out next week to scare everybody about bicycles.
They realize what a bunch of wusses we're just an absolute bunch of wusses, so selfish, so focused on ourselves, feeling sorry for ourselves, thinking we're the biggest victims.
10,000 kids go to hospitals.
Oh, maybe so, but at least we have hospitals.
What if there were no hospitals?
We handle these things, folks.
We're adults.
They're kids.
We take care of them.
One thing missing from this story was there was rare, and it's rare when this happens, no reference to minority kids and girls.
Hardest hit by bike accidents.
Joanne in Taylor, Michigan.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Ross.
Can't believe I'm talking to you.
I'm going to try not to fall out of my driver's seat.
I was driving into work this morning, and I heard a blurb on the radio, and I didn't catch the whole thing.
But the gist of it was just the horrible effects that the reduced number of deaths in Iraq is having on the American funeral mortuary industry.
No, no, no, I'm glad you called.
I don't know if you're busy and only heard with half of your attention.
The story is that the recent improvement in the vet, that is the vast reduction in the number of deaths has put a pinch on the Iraqi funeral business.
Ah, I get it.
Yes, no matter what the news, it has to be bad.
So the focal point of the news was: are we sure we really want fewer people to die because the Iraqi Gravediggers Association, the funeral parlor, so forth, are in a pinch?
That's right.
How awful for them.
Yeah, I just thought it was really something.
Stop and think of that, folks.
Literally, stop and think of that.
The focus of the narrative, thanks out there, Joanne.
I appreciate it.
You didn't fall off your chair there either.
It was good.
The narrative and the template in Iraq is such that the news has got to be bad no matter what.
So we've been clamoring and talking about all the increased deaths and the citizen deaths and the soldier deaths and all this is horrible.
Now they're going down and nobody can deny it.
So, but the narrative still is we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.
We've botched it.
We're making a whole mess.
The world hates us.
And so the narrative of negativity has to survive, and it did by claiming that these fewer deaths are putting a real strain on the funeral business in Iraq.
And of course, what are we supposed to do?
Start killing more people so the funeral business comes back in Iraq.
It's just, this is why I don't think these people have a clue anymore how they are now interpreted and understood.
Bob in Shreveport, Louisiana, you're next.
Hello, sir.
Rush?
Yeah.
Hear me okay?
Yeah, I hear you fine.
I'm talking about myself on my shop.
I wish you would talk more about the, I think a lot of people have forgotten that George Bush tried to implement a plan to privatize a small, very, very small part of our Social Security that we pay in every month to go into private investments.
And the Democrats all talked it down.
In fact, I think Hillary Clinton talked it down at that time, too.
Your call screener said that y'all had talked about it.
And I listened to you every day, three hours a day, and I don't remember you talking about it.
Does that mean the call screener lied to you?
No, no, no.
I could have missed it.
Well, we did talk about it.
And we did talk about it out there, Bob, and I'll tell you exactly what I said.
The $5,000 per baby born, she pushed that by saying, boy, if you invest that, why, you could buy your first home when you become an adult, or it could get you a college education.
And that lasted one day.
And I suggested that it wouldn't last very long because, wait a second, the president wanted to privatize just a portion of Social Security, put it somewhere where people would control its growth in their own investment portfolio.
And a Democrat said, you can't do that.
You might lose it.
The stock market fluctuates too bad.
What if there's a stock market crash?
And you can't do that because this is just a scheme to enrich Wall Street brokers and asset managers.
And they totally, totally killed it.
President could have sold a little bit better, but more on that in a moment.
But they killed it because they don't want people having control over their retirement.
So Mrs. Clinton comes along, $5,000, where's the same argument?
$5,000.
And she says, well, it's got to be invested and it has to grow if it's going to buy somebody a house someday or if it's going to get somebody a college degree.
And I am convinced out there, Bob, that she pulled it.
Among many reasons, the fact that somebody told her, if you keep that up there, you are making the argument for privatizing Social Security.
And we as Democrats can't do that.
And I didn't spend a whole lot of time on it, Bob, because it doesn't take long to explain it.
And I understand you've listened three hours, but the phone rings and so forth.
And it's difficult.
I mean, I can't do the same thing every day over and over, but I'm glad you called because it did give me a chance to explain it again.
We'll be back about this.
Cussing and swearing at work boosts team morale and spirit.
Philippia, man, we've known this around the EIB network for who knows how long.
You would not believe the lingo that gets bandied about here behind closed doors.
Got to take a break.
Much more straight ahead.
Hang tough.
▲
Export Selection