All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
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 plane.
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 a lot of people 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 got to hang together.
Hillary's staff's going to 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.
And her head right now, because of this slow bleed that's happened ever since the Drexel University debate, 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 10 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 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, is becoming the victim and arousing sympathy for herself among a lot of people.
Maybe it'll be a false announcement about Clinton Library releases.
Maybe some, you know, the template on we had the caller about Bill Crystal and Britt Hume, and here's the story about planted question, but Bernard Carrick and his effect on Rudy.
And it did seem to be on Friday that a media template was the Rudy story is the bigger story than the planted question.
So my friend is expecting something.
And I mentioned to you, if she does buffo at the debate, if she does anything to squirm out of this, the media coverage is going to do a 180.
Oh, how brilliant.
Oh, look at how she's turned adversity into something positive.
Blah, So, and his theory is that they're 10 steps ahead of us on the chessboard where we're all thinking here.
So this is this, as I said, this is getting fun now, folks.
This is just.
This is just getting fun.
Hillary the comeback cadet.
Yep, that's what it'll be on Thursday night and Friday.
In fact, let's go ahead and make that prediction.
I'll bet you that there is something that happens in this debate or something around it that does cause this kind of thing to happen.
Wall Street Journal has a great, great editorial today called Moving On Up.
It's got fabulous data in it.
It blows away the demagoguery.
It 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.
The staggering reality, a question to you: what group we have, the way income statistics are presented in this country is in quintiles.
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.
And you got a middle class, then upper, and then, you know, me.
Right.
Thank you, Mr. Snerdley.
So you got five quintiles.
So the question is: what group had the greatest growth in income over the last 10 years?
Was it the richest among us or the poorest among us?
Another way, in John Edwards' two 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, the Werners.
Their median income over the last 10 years increased by 90%.
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, 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 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 middle category in the last 10 years.
So they jumped three, four spots, two or three spots, two or three quintiles.
And God bless America, 5% 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 96,700 tax forms from the IRS.
So you could 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.
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 10 years ago.
Many, and by the way, in that fourth quintile, that's where the Charles Wrangell tax increase would begin.
Now, the lib narrative for this is what it is.
We can't get this news out.
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, Limbo.
This Wall Street Journal stuff is doctor.
Do we know those people who don't even fill out tax returns?
Well, some of them do, and they're moving up.
And the point, you can't, you know, this system, it works miracles for people who have ambition and drive.
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 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 last decade, according to Pew.
Then there's another study compiled by the—why do these people feel the way they do?
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?
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 survey, a study on incomes.
Minorities are hardest hit, even though incomes rose for blacks and whites on average.
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 inferior education from inferior government schools and Democrat-controlled cities, the majority they live in.
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, 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 $1 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 4.2 million people were living on $1 a day in 2005.
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 $1 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 soundbites involving Ted Danson, these are Rich.
This is Doug in Pueblo, Colorado.
Hi, Doug.
Hey, how's it going, Rush?
Longtime listener.
Thank you.
I just wanted to go over the point you were making about the Dubai Ports deal.
And maybe Boeing has suffered because this week at the Dubai Air Show, the airline didn't order the Boeings.
They ordered the Airbuses.
Is that the point you were making?
Well, it's one of the points 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.
A smidgen of the order went to Boeing.
Now, I know they need long-haul jets, and they claim that Boeing doesn't make what they need.
The airframes and engines just don't handle the needs for what they want.
They want to become a long-haul global hub.
But I raised the question because Sarkozy makes his comments on the floor of the House in his speech last week that he fears a coming economic war.
Is this just a little minor symbol of it, given the Dubai Ports deal?
I'm not saying that the Emirates going to cast this aside because the point is that they need us as well as anybody else.
They've got this little idiot in Iran nuking up.
They've got capitalistic global economic designs.
They don't want to be caught up in this Middle Eastern mess.
Yeah, that's true.
I believe I used to fly for the airline for the last three years, just moved home to Colorado.
Wait, Did you fly for Emirates Airlines?
Is that who you flew for?
I did, yes.
Okay.
After 9-11, I was laid off from American Airlines, but I 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 777 airline in the world.
And when that happened, they also ordered another 20 Boeing 777s.
So Emirates is a huge customer of Boeing, probably their best customer right now.
And the reason that they ordered the Airbuses 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.
I don't know if these are so much, you would know.
The story I read about it did not indicate these are replacements, but rather they were aircraft that Boeing doesn't make.
Long-haul, you know, huge capacity jets.
The order was 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 their executives are in some hot water over insider training.
The A380 is way late.
To me, it 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 Emirates is the biggest customer for the 380.
I think they have 53 on order, and they've only sold like 120.
No, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying yesterday they say cancel the order with Airbus.
I'm just saying this particular order, isolated with just itself.
Airbus gets $30 billion worth of orders, and Boeing got scratch.
Well, the 787 would have been the 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 with the Airbus.
Plus, Airbus discounts the planes, and it's pretty cheap to buy an Airbus.
Okay, give me the difference in seating capacity of a 787-10 and a 787 stock.
Well, I don't think that they agreed to make the 787-10.
I know, but if they hadn't, if they had made the decision, if they had said, okay, Emirates, you want the 787-10, what would its capacity have been?
I don't know.
300 people.
What's the 350's capacity?
I'm sure that's that big.
Maybe that's why they went with that order.
Could be.
So you don't think the ports deal has anything to do with this?
No, I don't.
It all comes down to numbers at the end of the day.
Yes, but I'll tell you something.
I think they were livid when this thing didn't happen.
They were embarrassed.
They were humiliated.
The deal was done.
You know, a bunch of Jabberwocky congressmen, both parties, started running with the microphones to be the first to pound their chests like Tarzan.
I'm going to save the country from terrorists running the ports.
And the guys in Dubai are not.
They make that political, 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 don't want to blow up their customers.
They don't want to blow up the people they're going to export things to.
That whole Dubai ports deal thing was the biggest embarrassment.
And it showed how the mob culture can just get going, how mob can be formed and all that.
Well, look, I appreciate your call out there, Doug.
You retired from Emirates Airlines now, did you say?
I actually flew there three years, and now I'm back home, and I fly a corporate debt now.
Oh, what do you fly?
Falcon 900.
Falcon 900.
Hey, hey, hey, that's not bad.
Yeah, it's really good.
Well, look, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate it.
I'm going to do some more digging on this.
I don't know if you can actually find.
That was proof of it, but I was just speculating the ports deal might have something to do with this.
At any rate, we got to take a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
I want you to sit tight.
Ted Danson and the oceans being destroyed 10 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 10 years to live because the oceans were going to be dead.
And if the oceans died, then we would soon follow.
Made a big deal out of this.
One of the early environmental alarmists, the brilliant oceanologist Ted Danson.
Back in 1993 on my television show, I implored the DriveMy Media to ask Ted Danson where he got his information on the oceans having 10 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 10 years left on earth unless we do it?
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 accepted his 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, homophone 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, he cares so much.
Well, last Friday on CNBC's High Net Worth, the reporter at Jane Wells interviewed Ted Danson.
And she said, there was a time when you said the oceans are going to be dead in 10 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.
70% 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.
Danson says some people have wondered why, listen to an actor.
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 $3 million 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.
I do not want to be victimized or embarrassed or guilty that I haven't done something during this really critical time.
So, 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 $3 million 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 a climate.
Anyway, I just think it illustrates the point.
Celebs are silly.
He admits all this.
And yet, we know that you people are going to 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, El Rushbo.
I want to see if I can jog that highly fertile memory of yours and take you back to 1992 when George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against Slick Willie.
Okay, hang on.
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 opposing campaign come in.
Larry King said, well, we didn't know he called me.
Nobody believes that Stephanopoulos is sitting out there on the phone for three hours waiting to get into Larry King Live.
So your point is this whole notion of planted questions, old hat for the Clinton war room.
Absolutely.
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 there.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, you were talking about the widening income gap.
And 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.
Just by your own numbers, you said 10% for like your income gap.
If your income went from $10 million to $11 million in 10 years at 10%, your income raised $1 million.
Whereas if I made $50,000 and it doubled 100% in 10 years, I'd make $100,000.
So in dollar amount, the income gap would have widened.
In percentage, it wouldn't have.
But as far as the standard of living, that would make a huge impact on me, and it would make somewhat an impact on you.
That's exactly right.
You're exactly right.
The widening gap between rich and poor is always done on incomes, not percentage increases.
But 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 the fact that the gap exists means that opportunity still abounds in the country.
Well, it will always be increasing.
But what's the problem with that if everybody's making more money and everybody's standards of living are raising?
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 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, but they want people to think in the lower income brackets that the rich are going to 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 in monetary sense.
They're just doing it.
It's just a political cheap trick appealing to envy.
Well, and I like your point.
The wider the gap, the more potential I have.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's what the whole, this is all, this is econ 101.
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 because the income gap, rich and poor, was part of that monologue.
And it's, you know, I'll tell you what, 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?
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 the 70% rate kicks in at the first dollar over $100,000.
Below 70 was a 60% rate that kicked in over 90%.
And so 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.
And it was put in there by Congress, who writes tax law, 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%.
A lot of the shelters had gone away as well.
And those of us in the know said immediately, once we got the 28%, 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% with retroactivity thrown in for like a year prior.
I will never forget this.
Now, what happened in the 80s when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 28%?
If you go look at the total take to the Treasury from income taxes in 1980, 81, it was around $400 to $500 billion.
I think that's right.
Anyway, double.
The bottom line is at 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%.
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.
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.
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.
Where did 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 a couple years after he came here.
He learned English 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 his education, his master's degree, his bachelor's degrees, everything else that we've done.
We paid every single penny.
We ate rice and beans.
We heat 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 bought our clothes from secondhand stores and we had nothing.
And we paid for every single thing that we own today.
We're now, we paid $50,000 in taxes last year.
So, you know, we've obviously 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 managerial work now.
So you and he have gone from literally nothing.
Nothing.
To now where you pay $50,000 in taxes last year, and you are so right.
You are now a target.
And absolutely.
And you know what?
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 girls.
I've got my degree, but I work only if they're in school and only when they became in school, where I would work a few days in the daytime, which I've done for 18 years.
And 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 10 favorite female names.
Well, thank you.
It is.
I'm glad you didn't put me up right against the brake because I had a lot to say, and I could go on and on.
And you know what?
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 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, this has been very powerful.
You've floored us here.
Because the great thing about this, in addition to your passion and your obvious love and pride in what both of you have done, is a great testament to the fact that it can be done.
And it can be done during any economic circumstance because during the period of time that this has happened to you, we've had recessions, we've had economic downturns, and yet you've gone from nothing to paying $50,000 a year in taxes last year.
And you're probably going to continue to pay more as your husband's success continues to amount.
Yes, we will.
And you know, the other thing, my husband 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, 20 years.
I don't speak English.
It's real hard to learn English.
I look at them and they'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 two months because that's all he knew how to say.
Tina.
But I can tell you this: he learned English and he learned English.
Tina, I've got a heartbreak.
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.
Tina, we love you, but I gotta go.
I just literally.
21 hours, we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection