All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
November 13, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my good friends, thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Nice to have you along.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I just got the funniest note from a friend predicting what Hillary's going to do to get out of this mess.
And I'd like to share it with you because this guy's pretty perceptive on things.
The level of detail on what Hillary's staff does means that a lot of people know what she's doing because she's a micromanager.
She's a control freak.
And she's going to be depending heavily on loyalty now from the staff, because the staff there's a lot of people who know what she's doing, planning questions, all this other stuff, not paying tips.
So you know, she's going to be giving the staff a whole bunch of us against the world speeches all over the place.
We gotta hang together.
Hillary's staff's gonna probably get so much love in the foreseeable future that they might think Hillary has been reborn.
But this is the thing.
She's a micromanager.
Nothing happens by accident.
Uh and her head right now, because of this slow bleed that's happened ever since the Drexel University debate.
Uh the whole thing now is that there's got to be gobs of details that have to be covered up.
And the chess game of deceit that the Clintons play is probably ten moves ahead of where we all are right now.
That being said, here's what my friend expects to happen.
A significant announcement at the debate Thursday night from Hillary of some kind, something, anything, to change the subject.
Distraction will be in high gear, and it might even be quite clever.
It may be that Hillary won't have the announcement, but that Bill will announce that he's got to go in to have a precancerous lesion removed, or that he has to go in for a non-routine medical checkup.
You know, anything to distract people and to create sympathy, because that is what Mrs. Clinton shines at becoming the victim and arousing uh sympathy for herself among a lot of people.
Uh maybe it'll be a false announcement about uh Clinton library releases, uh maybe some you know the the template uh on on uh we had the we had the caller about Bill Crystal and Britt Hume and and uh here's the story about Planted Question But Bernard Carrick and his effect on Rudy, and it did seem to be on Friday that the media template was the Rudy story's the bigger story than the uh then the than the planted question.
Um so my friend is expecting something.
And I mentioned to you, and if she if she does Baffo at the debate, if she if she does anything to squirm out of this, the media cover is gonna do a 180.
Oh, how brilliant.
Oh, look at how she's turned adversity into something positive.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So uh, and his theory is that they're ten steps ahead of us on the chessboard.
Where we're all thinking here.
So this is this as I say, this is getting fun now, folks.
This is just getting fun.
Hillary the Comeback Kidette.
Yep, that's what it'll be on Thursday night and Friday.
I'll in fact, let's go ahead and make that prediction.
I'll bet you that there is something that happens in this debate that that, or something around it, that does cause this kind of thing to happen.
Wall Street Journal has a great, great editorial today called Movin' On Up.
It's got fabulous data in it.
Uh it blows away the demagoguery, doesn't blow the way the demagogues.
Now it's hard to do this on radio because it's numbers and numbers and radio don't mix.
But I, my friends, am a highly trained broadcast specialist.
And if anybody can make this editorial understandable, it is I. Uh the staggering reality, a question to you.
What group we have in the the way uh income statistics are presented in this country is in quintiles.
Uh so there are five groups, Income ranges.
And of course, Quintile One is the poorest of the poor, the lowest of the low, the thirstiest of the thirstiest, the hungriest of the hungry.
Two high range of poverty.
Then you've got middle class, then upper, and then you know me.
Right.
Thank you, Mr. Snerdley.
So we got you got five quintiles.
So the question is what group had the greatest growth in income over the last ten years.
Was it the richest among us or the poorest among us?
Another way, in John Edwards II Americas, which America had the greatest percentage change in income.
Don't bet the farm on the richest.
You'd be wrong.
It's the poorest, the lowest quintile.
The liberals losers in the lottery of life, the lowest one-fifth of Verners.
Their median income over the last ten years increased by ninety percent.
Well, how about the highest fifth?
The quintile with the Clintons in it and me went up by 10%.
Percentage income, 10% increase over the last 10 years.
In the highest quintile, lowest quintile, 90% increase over the last 10 years.
Now are you surprised about this?
Some of you probably are.
Because if you read the drive-by newspapers, uh you're shocked.
And if you get your news from mainstream drive-by television, you're shocked.
Income of the lowest quintile grew 90%.
Income of the highest grew only 10%.
Now, this is this is not one of these quick and dirty surveys with a thousand people and loaded questions.
This is a study of 96,700 tax forms from 1996 and 2005.
And as I have told you countless times, over and over, more than half of those in the poorest category move up.
You know, the poor is not a constant group.
People are moving in and out of these quintiles all the time.
People at the top lose a lot, some lose everything.
Everybody's moving in and out of these quintiles.
One in four in the middle or upper middle category.
The poorest category moved up, and one in four in the lowest quintile made it to the middle or upper upper middle category in the last ten years.
So they jumped three spots.
Two or three spots, two or three quintiles.
And God bless America, five percent of the people in the lowest quintile in 1996 had made it to the highest quintile by 2005.
Yeah, I'm not kidding.
This is this is 96,700 tax forms from the IRS.
So you can say that 25% in the lowest quintile made it to the middle or upper middle category, 5% from the lowest, the poorest made it to the richest quintile.
Now, you might be saying rush, rush, you're talking to yourself.
The media, the liberals will never let these realities change their talking points or action lines, and I know that's the case, my friends.
Uh and for the liberals, it's the only game in town.
But this is a big however.
We can't let them screw up the dynamic economy, our democratizing economy with discredited depression-era tax policies.
This report proves that many of the rich they want to soak were the poorest ten years ago.
Many, and by the way, in that fourth quintile, that's uh that that's where the uh uh the Charles Wrangell tax increase would uh would begin.
Now the the lib narrative for this is is is is what it is.
We can't get this news out.
Why this this destroys everything we've been telling people about the gap between the rich and the poor growing.
The gap between the rich and the poor is not growing.
It's a media myth.
It's a liberal myth.
And so they can't allow the myth to be destroyed.
So they'll come up with something like, well, you know, the poorest of the poor, they don't even fill out tax forms.
I mean, they're so poor that we don't even file returns.
You can't use this information, Limboy, this Wall Street Journal stuff is a doctor.
We know those people don't even fill out tax.
Well, some of them do, and They're moving up.
And the point you can't, you know, this this system, it it works miracles for people who have ambition and drive.
Uh and we can't let liberals destroy this.
It's just and let me give you two examples of how they have.
In the first one, the Pew Research Center is reporting that a growing number of African Americans believe that they are worse off than they were five years ago.
Which is not a surprise, given the uh the doom and gloom coverage of racial issues these past years from the drive-by media.
Less than half of African Americans think their future is going to be any brighter.
Two-thirds of African Americans say that there's a growing difference of values between poor and middle class blacks.
Most believe there's widespread discrimination, especially when applying for a job or seeking housing.
But here's an interesting tidbit that's not going to get much press.
The majority of African Americans, 53%, say that they themselves are mainly responsible for their position in life.
This acknowledgment that they make has marked a new trend that has emerged in the in the last decade, according to Pew.
Then there's another study uh compiled by the wh why do these people feel the way they do?
They who do they vote for?
Who's telling them their life sucks?
Who's telling them they've got no future because they're discriminating?
It's that they're the people they vote for.
And of course it's reinforced by the drive-by media.
When in fact these tax form studies show something just the opposite as possible because it's happening in this country.
Then the Brookings institution has a uh survey, a study on incomes.
Minorities are hardest hit, even though incomes rose for blacks and whites on average.
Uh income rose most for women, white women and black women, white men suffered income stagnation, and the income among black men actually dropped.
Now, the reasons cited for lack of progress among blacks are familiar.
African Americans get uh inferior education from inferior government schools in Democrat controlled cities, the majority they live in.
Um they face workplace discrimination in these blue cities, and there are too many single parent families in the blue city homes that they live in.
So what we have here, we have another report card on liberal blue state social policies, and once again we've got failing grades.
All these programs designed to produce wealth, uh income increases not working for the people who subscribe to liberalism, and finally this.
And this, my friends, is from the BBC.
The number of South Africans living on less than one dollar a day has more than doubled in a decade since shortly after the end of apartheid.
The South African Institute of Race Relations said that four point two million people were living on one dollar a day in two thousand five.
Can I translate this for you?
Poverty in South Africa has doubled since the ANC took control of the country.
And the ANC is a Marxist-rooted bunch.
A socialist bunch.
And poverty has doubled.
Well, at least the number of people living on less than a dollar a day in South Africa has doubled since the ANC took over.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
All right, back to the phones before we get to audio sound bites involving Ted Danson.
These are rich.
This is Doug in Pueblo, Colorado.
Hi, Doug.
How's it going, Russ?
Long time listener.
Thank you.
I just wanted to uh go over the point you were making about the Dubai ports deal.
And maybe Boeing has suffered because this week at the Vaya show the airline didn't order the Boeing, they ordered the air buses.
Is that what the point you were making?
Well, I it's one of the points I was.
I was I was asking a question more than anything else for people to think about, but here the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, had their little air show.
They bought $30 billion worth of Airbus, jumbo long haul jets, uh a smidgen of the order went to Boeing.
Uh now I know they want they need long-haul jets, and they they claim that Boeing doesn't make what they need.
The airframes and engines just don't handle them the needs for what they want.
They want to become a long haul uh global hub.
But they raise the question because Sarkozy makes his comments on the floor of the House in his speech last week that uh he fears a coming economic war.
Is this just a little minor symbol of it uh given the Dubai ports deal?
I'm not I'm not I'm not saying that the Emirates gonna cast this aside because the point is that uh you know they they need us as well as anybody else.
They've got a they've got this little idiot in Iran nuking up.
They they they've got capitalistic global economic designs.
They don't want to be caught up in this Middle Eastern mess.
Yeah, that's true.
The uh I believe I used to fly for the airline for the last three years, just moved home to Colorado.
And where did you wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, did you fly for Emirates Airlines?
Is that what you who you flew for?
I did, yes.
Okay.
After 911 I was laid off from American Airlines, but got the job there in Dubai.
And actually, after the Dubai Ports deal, the Airbus 380 was delayed for delivery to the airline.
And Emirates now is the biggest Boeing triple seven airline in the world, and when that happened, they also ordered another twenty Boeing triple sevens.
So Emirates is a huge customer of Boeing, probably their best customer right now.
And the reason that they ordered the Airbus is because it's a replacement for the Airbus jet that's old now, and they're retiring those, so it saves them on training costs.
It doesn't really have to do anything with the Dubai ports deal.
Well okay, I will accept your word for it.
I was asking the question.
Um I don't know if these are so much you would know.
The the the story I read about it did not indicate these are replacements, uh, but rather they were aircraft that Boeing doesn't make.
Uh long haul, you know, huge capacity jets.
But the the order was the the uh the A350 and the A380, but one of the things that puzzled me about it is that Airbus is not in solid shape.
They're not delivering product on time.
A couple of executives are you know in in some hot water over insider training.
The A380 is way late.
Um they're they've got it was it was to me just seemed like a strange decision to make.
Well, I don't think they look at it in the short term with Airbus.
It's a long-term relationship with the company.
And if Emirates was to cancel their orders with Airbus, the Airbus 380 program would destroy the company because uh Emirates is the biggest customer for the 380.
I think they have fifty-three on order, and they've only sold like a hundred and two.
Oh no, no, no, don't misunderstand.
I'm not I'm not suggesting they say cancel the order with Airbus.
I'm just saying this particular order.
Isolated uh with just itself.
Um Airbus gets thirty billion dollars worth of orders and Boeing got scratch.
Yeah.
And I just Well, what they the 787 would have been the aircra aircraft that they would have ordered, but they wanted them to make the 787-10, which would have been a bigger airplane, and that is what the Airbus 350 is.
It's a bigger airplane than the 787-10.
So maybe that is why they went ahead and the Airbus.
Plus Airbus discounts the planes, and it's pretty cheap to buy an Airbus.
What okay, give me the difference in seating capacity of a 787-10 and a seven eight seven eighty seven stock.
Well, I don't think that they agreed to make the seven eighty seven-tent.
I know, but if they had a if if they if they had made the decision, if if if they say, okay, Emirates, you want the seven eighty seven dash ten, what would it what would its capacity have been?
Uh I don't know.
Three three hundred people.
What's the three fifty's capacity?
I'm su I'm sure it's that big.
Maybe that's why they went with that order.
Uh could be.
So you don't think the ports deal has anything to do with this?
No, I don't.
It it all comes down to numbers at the end of the day.
Um, yes, but I'll tell you something.
I think they were livid when this thing didn't happen.
They were embarrassed, they were humiliated.
Uh the deal was done.
You know, a bunch of jabber walkie congressmen, both parties started running with the microphones to be the first to pound their chests like Tars, I'm gonna save the country from terrorists running the ports, and the guys in Dubai are not.
And that was too bad for Dubai.
And the irony is of the safety would have been better if they were running it because they would have been more worried about it than anybody else.
Of course, they've got global expansion ideas.
They're not they're they don't want to blow up their customers.
They don't want to blow up the people are gonna export things to.
That whole Dubai ports deal thing was the biggest embarrassment.
Uh, and it it it showed how the mob culture can just get going.
Uh how how mob can be formed and all that.
Well, look, I appreciate your uh your call out there, Doug.
You you've retired from Emirate Airlines now, did you say?
Uh I actually flew there three years, and now I'm back home, and I fly a uh corporate debt now.
Oh, what do you fly?
Uh Falcon 900.
Falcon 900, hey, hey, hey, that's not bad.
Yeah, it's it's it's really good.
Well, look, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate it.
I'm gonna do I'm gonna do some more digging on this.
I don't know if you can actually find I was proof of it, but I was a speculating the port steel might have something to do with this.
Uh at any rate, we got to take a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
Want you to sit tight.
Ted Danson and the oceans being destroyed ten years.
Back in a second.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Remember back in 1988, when this program debuted, Ted Danson predicted that we only had ten years to live because the oceans were going to be dead, and if the oceans died, then we would soon follow.
Uh made a big deal out of this, one of the uh early environmental alarmists, the brilliant oceanologist, uh Ted Danson.
Back in 1993, on my television show, I implored the drive by media to ask Ted Danson where he got his information on the oceans having uh ten years left.
They're always making me justify my existence.
I wish they'd do that to Hollywood celebrities who claim to be oceanographers and so forth.
Mr. Danson Mr. Danson, what do you mean we've only got ten years left on Earth unless we do what what's your source?
They never do.
They just whatever Ted Danson or Whoopi Goldberg or any of these other Hollywood celebs say, they just accept it as gospel.
When I say it, prove it.
Where'd you get that information?
You have no right to say that.
You're just a racist, bigot, sexist homophobe pig.
Is what the media, that's how they react to me.
You can't say that.
Prove it.
Ted Danson makes these claims.
Oh, oh, oh, he cares so much.
Well, last Friday on CNBC is High Networth, the reporter at Jane Wells interviewed Ted Danson.
And she said, There was a time when you said the oceans are gonna be dead in ten years.
They're not dead?
No.
They're not.
But I'm sure there was some hyperbole in what I said to draw attention to the issue.
But you go to science journals now.
Seventy percent of the world's fisheries are at a point of collapse.
Really?
Oh, you lied.
It was just hyperbole.
So now, after being proven to have lied, but but but 70% of the ocean's fisheries or the world's fisheries or whatever, are at a point of collapse.
70%.
So he'd been proven wrong, throws another figure out there, and oh wow, we're in trouble.
Oh no, 70% of the world's fisheries are closed.
So Jane Wells then said, well, Danson, she reported after he left.
Uh Danson says some people have wondered why, listen to an actor.
Uh they make fun of celebrities taking up causes, and he gets that.
Celebrities can be silly, you can take swipes at them.
You know, what the heck, why not?
We are silly.
But we do raise money.
You know something.
This community raises more money for charity than any other community in the world.
This community is so generous.
He says over the years he's probably given three million dollars of his own money to the oceans campaign.
And just last week he flew to Geneva to urge the World Trade Organization to lift subsidies which may result in overfishing.
I do want to be engaged in the process.
And do not want to be victimized or uh embarrassed or guilty that I haven't done something during this really critical time.
So uh once again, after being proved wrong about the death of the oceans, he remains an expert.
He remains a go-to guy.
Why?
Because he donates so much to charity to the oceans.
He threw three million dollars down the drain if he donated it to an ocean charity.
The idea we can control the oceans is about as absurd as being able to control the climate.
Anyway, I just think I it it it illustrates the point.
Celebs are silly, he admits all this, and yet we know that you people are gonna take it seriously because we're like the big click in high school, and you all wish you were in our group.
Here's Gary in your Belinda, California.
Hi, Gary, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, L. Rushbow.
I uh want to see if I can jog that highly fertile memory of yours and take you back to nineteen ninety-two when George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against slick willy.
Okay, hang on.
Let me let me the only way you can check my memory is if I remember it at this point.
Okay?
Are you talking about Larry King Live?
Yes.
George Stephanopoulos called in.
This is correct.
And George H. W. Bush said I didn't know that you were going to let the the uh opposing campaign come in and Larry King said, Wow, we don't know he called.
We don't.
Uh nobody believes that Stephanopoulos is sitting out there on the phone for three hours waiting to get into Larry King Live.
So uh your point is this whole notion of planted questions, uh old hat for the Clinton war room.
Absolutely.
This and this was a planted ambush.
Good point.
A planted ambush by one of the war room leaders, George Stephanopoulos, who, by the way, now, of course, is an independent objective journalist at ABC News.
Of course.
It's incestuous out there, folks.
Just incestuous.
Thanks for the reminder.
I appreciate that.
Greg in Spanish Fork, Utah.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
It's such an honor to talk to you today.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, uh, you were talking about the widening income gap.
And uh I would argue as the Democrats describe it, it is widening and it will always be widening, and there's not a problem with that.
Um just by your own numbers, you said uh ten percent for for like your income gap.
If your income went from ten million to eleven million in ten years at ten percent, uh you're income raised a million dollars.
Whereas if I uh made fifty thousand dollars and it doubled a hundred percent in ten years, I'd make a hundred thousand dollars.
So in dollar amount, um the income gap would have widened in percentage it wouldn't uh have.
But as far as the standard of living, um that would make a huge impact on me, and it would make uh somewhat from an impact on you.
That's exactly right.
You're exactly right.
The guy the widening gap between rich and poor is always done on incomes, not percentage increases.
But here's here's the real reason why the gap between the rich and poor is good.
It is the incentive offered to those in the lower quintiles to get out of them and move up.
And the fact that there are people where they want to go proves you can get there.
And so it provides an incentive.
The gap actually is an incentive for people on the low end of the gap to get out of it and move closer toward the high end of the gap.
So uh the the the fact that the gap exists means that opportunity still abounds in the country.
Well, I know i it will always be increasing, and but uh what's the problem with that if everybody's making more money and everybody's standards of living are raising.
I I don't get the problem with that.
There isn't a problem with it.
The Libs have made a problem.
It's a campaign slogan, it's class envy.
They tell people, they tell people who are increasing their income that it would be a lot more if the rich weren't stealing it from them, or the rich aren't paying enough taxes.
So the libs want everybody equalized, or they want they want people to think in the lower income brackets uh that uh the rich are gonna be gotten even with.
And it's not fair the rich have that much more than they do, and so it's time to get out there and punish the rich.
And so whether that impacts the poor or the middle class in a positive fashion, which it doesn't, is irrelevant uh in in a in monetary sense.
They're just doing it uh it's it's it's just a political cheap trick, appealing to envy.
Well, and I like your point.
Um the wider the gap, the more potential I have.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's what the the whole the the this is all this is econ 101.
And and so few people are taught basic economics 101.
I have that I did that monologue last week.
I should do that every now and then.
Uh because that this the income gap uh rich and poor was part of that uh monologue, and it's it's you know I'll tell you what.
Let's let's to to illustrate this.
Let's say that instead Of five income quintiles, the Democrats succeed in taxing the rich and punishing the rich and instituting a wealth tax so much that we're reduced to three.
And that the gap is very narrow.
And the distance between rich and poor is much less than it is today.
That would translate to being much less opportunity in the country.
Because the higher you get, the more the government's going to take away from you.
And so what incentive is that?
Uh it's it's why lower tax rates work.
Let's say back when Reagan took office in 1981, the top marginal tax rate, folks, was 70%.
70%.
Now, the marginal rate is best explained as the rate you pay on the last dollar of income.
It's the highest rate, but you have to go through other brackets before you get to the 70% bracket.
So let's use I'm going to make this up, because I don't have the numbers from that era, but it'll be pretty close.
Let's say that um the 70% rate kicks in at the first dollar over a hundred thousand.
Below 70 was a 60% rate that kicked in over 90.
And so for the higher you went, the less of that dollar you earned you got to keep.
So there was no incentive to get there.
What there was were a lot of tax shelters that people were able to utilize to avoid hitting the marginal rate.
Um and that was that was it was put in there by by by Congress who writes tax law uh in order to steer social architecture the way they wanted.
When Ronald Reagan left office, eight years later, in 1989, the top marginal tax rate had gone from 70 to 28 percent.
A lot of the shelters had gone away as as well.
And those of us in the know said immediately, once we got the 28 percent, there was a 31% bubble for some income, but it was basically 28%.
Those of us in the know knew that the next time we had a Democrat president, that 28 was going to get jacked up, but none of the shelters, so to speak, would be reenacted.
And that's what happened.
Clinton got in there, and the 28% rate became 39.6.
Uh and with retroactivity thrown in uh for uh like a year prior, I will never forget this.
Now, what happened in the eighties when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.
If you go look at the total take to the Treasury in uh from income taxes in uh 1980, 81, it was around four to five hundred uh billion.
I think that's right.
Anyway, double.
The bottom line is it double.
When Reagan left office, we were over 900 and some odd billion dollars in revenue at lowering the rates.
The same thing that's happened here with the Bush tax cuts, same identical thing.
And these tax cuts have included a lowering of the capital gains rate to 15 percent.
And that's caused just all kinds of booms to occur, and the money pouring into the treasury is more than anybody projected.
The deficit's lower than anybody thought it was going to be, and yet here we have Democrats talking about the need to raise taxes to pay for health care.
When we've got money to pay for that and a bunch of other things and cancel a bunch of redundant programs at the same time.
Quick timeout.
Back after this.
This could be interesting.
We go to Chicago next to the phones.
This is Tina.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Rush.
We my husband and I are the statistic that you are talking about.
He came here with nothing, not a penny to his name.
Off a boat, got his citizenship, spent seven years in the armed forces to pay this country back from his freedom.
Liberals only care about the poor when you stay poor.
They don't want you to become, you know, in the rich department.
That's exactly what I need some that's exactly right, but I need some more details.
Did your husband come without you?
Did you meet him after he got here?
I met him shortly after he got here.
When did he get here?
He got here in 1980.
When did he where'd he come from?
He came from Cuba.
Came from Cuba.
Okay, gets here in 1980, seven years without a penny, meets you, then has even less.
Well, I met him before.
I met him at several couple years after he came here.
He learned English in um immediately.
He went to school, he got his degrees, he was told over and over to get on welfare that the government would pay for its education, his master's degrees, bachelor's degrees, whatever everything else that we've done.
We paid every single penny.
We ate rice and beans.
We heat our our little tiny house with a pot of beans in the morning and it was warm all day because it cooks all day on the stove.
And I'm telling you, we we bought our clothes from second hand stores and we had nothing.
And we paid for every single thing that we own today.
We're we're now we paid fifty thousand dollars in taxes last year, so you know, we've obviously um become the target of the government, but we took nothing from this country.
He owed this country when he came here.
He owed this country for the freedoms that we have.
What does he do?
He does uh managerial work now.
So you and he have gone from literally nothing.
Nothing.
To now where you pay fifty thousand dollars in taxes last year, and you are so right, you are now a target.
And absolutely, and you know what?
Mm I have two children within my marriage, have the same last name as my husband.
I've been a stay-at-home mother with those with my girls.
I've got my degree, but I I work only if they're in school and only when they became in school, where I would work a few days in the in the daytime, which I've done for eighteen years.
And we never we never asked for anything, we never took anything.
We voted Republican when we had nothing.
And we vote Republican today because liberals only care about you if you stay poor.
They don't want you to become rich, they want you on welfare, they want you to have you know those five kids to keep getting more welfare checks, and it's a big lie.
Liberalism is a big lie.
Boy, you've got people standing up all over this country cheering you, Tina, which by the way is one of my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Well, thank you.
It is.
I'm glad you didn't put me up right against the break because I have a lot to say, and I I I could go on and on.
And you know what?
He's he he's he came here with a degree from Cuba.
He had a four-year engineering degree in Cuba.
You think that did anything in this country?
No, it did not.
He started from scratch.
He went he had to get his high school diploma.
He has two bachelor's degrees, a master's degree, and I have my bachelor's degree, and we have done it all on our own.
We didn't get any money from anybody.
We've never received an inheritance.
He doesn't have a single solitary bit of family in this country, and we have done it on our own without the government's help, thank you.
Well, uh I'll tell you uh you've you've uh you've you this has been very powerful.
You floored us here.
Because the great thing about this, in addition to your passion and your obvious uh love and and pride in what uh both of you have done, uh is a great testament to the fact that it can be done.
And it it can be done during any economic circumstance because during the period of time that this has happened to you, we've had recessions, uh we've had economic downturns, and yet you've gone from nothing to paying fifty thousand dollars a year in taxes last year, and you're probably gonna continue to pay more as your as your uh as uh your your your husband's success continues to amount.
Yes, yes, we will.
And you know the other thing, my husband uh volunteered for a while teaching English as a second language, and it was a free class for those people that came.
And my husband used to tell them, if you want to learn English, then you go, yeah, I'll teach you for free because this is a community class, but if you really want to learn something and if you really want to appreciate something, and if you really want something to mean something, you go write a checkout and you pay to learn English.
You pay to learn something, you pay for your degree, you pay for your home.
Because when you pay for something out of your own pocket, you appreciate it.
And those people that came to his class, some of them have been coming to that class for three years for a free English class.
Do you think they learned a word of English?
No, they did not.
And when somebody tells me, because I'm in the healthcare industry, when somebody tells me, well, you know, it's real hard.
I've been here for you know twenty years.
I don't speak English, it's real hard to learn English.
I look at them and it'd say, you know what, there's no excuse.
It took my husband six months to learn English, and yeah, maybe he could only say, I want a cheeseburger and fry for the first two months because that's all he knew how to say.
Tina.
But I can tell you this.
He learned English and he learned.
Tana, I I've got a hard break.
You've proved something behind every successful man is a strong and brilliant woman.
We'll be back after this.
No, no, no, Tina, I understand that, but I don't...
No, no.
God...
God.
I...
And...
Tina, we love you, but I gotta go.
I've g I just literally uh twenty-one hours, we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection