All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
February 16, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Have your eyes ever itched?
What does it mean when your eyes itch?
My eyes itch.
No, no, I don't have any allergies here.
It's just in a corner of my eyes.
It just not too much smoke.
Don't give me that.
They've been itching for a couple days here.
I have great ventilation systems wherever I am.
Try to get a helpful answer, and all you do is get preached to.
Greetings, folks, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, great to have you here, serving humanity, talent on loan from God, telephone number 800-282-2882.
Before we get back to things, has anybody seen you three people that I'm snurdly Bryan and Dawn, have you seen the movie Nights in Rodantha?
Uh with Richard Gere and Diane Lynn.
Well, I I happened yesterday after the channel surfing around and I saw it at the point where they're in the inn there on the beach, and she plays a record, an LP, an album.
And uh I I can't recognize songs, I've never heard.
All I could hear was the percussion and the beat.
I said, wow, this sounds cool.
What I thought it was, but it's not was Tim McGraw.
I love it, I like it, I want some more of it.
So I waited till the end of the movie.
I well, I didn't wait.
I I fast forwarded to the credit role because they always lose the songs.
And there's nothing.
I mean, there was nothing in the list of songs that gave me any indication of what the song was.
Stuff by Count Basie.
I know this wasn't Count Basie.
This had to be a country tune.
But there was no artist up there that looked like a country artist.
So somebody said, go out and buy the soundtrack.
What didn't buy the soundtrack?
What's that soundtrack's what's it gonna cost?
12 bucks?
I'm not gonna spend 12 bucks on a soundtrack, I don't even know what the song is on it.
Especially here with an economic crisis, 12 bucks?
And have to listen every song to figure out what it is?
Do you know what the song was that I'm talking about?
You Oh, don't give me the See, it the movie wasn't close captioned, so I don't know that it was a great love.
Did the guy die?
Did the guy die?
Is that what happened when the mudslide happened with his okay?
I they never I couldn't figure it out because I couldn't hear the the uh the dialogue.
No, I was not watching Love Stories of the Weekend.
I would channel surfing around, and I happen to she puts the puts the needle on the record there, and I heard the tune.
Ooh, this is cool.
I started even grooving to it myself.
So I hit it was pay-per-view.
You know, I I I'm I'm a direct TV platinum member.
I get it all.
I don't have to order it.
It's just there.
So I'm not embarrassed about anything.
I was not watching love stories on top.
What if I was?
What if I was watching by the way it was Sunday, which is Valentine's Day plus one?
Yesterday was Valentine's Day was Saturday.
That's that's not why my eyes are itching as they haven't been watching too many uh too many love stories.
Ladies and gentlemen, a quick question here.
When did Barney Frank become the face of the Democrat Party?
This guy is getting more FaceTime than Pelosi.
I mean he's getting the amount of face time he's getting is is is it's equivalent to what Obama's getting.
Now, if Barney Frank is the face of the Democrat Party, what are we really looking at when we see his face?
No, no, seriously now.
50 billion, 100 billion?
Even that may not be enough to keep people in their homes.
Let's see if I understand this.
If you cannot pay your mortgage, no matter who you are, no matter the circumstances of getting the mortgage, you will forever keep your home.
Is that is that how the loan process works now?
Now, seriously, folks, stick with me on this.
If you can't pay your mortgage, you know, Obama's gonna have a big uh big uh announcement on this Tuesday or Wednesday in Phoenix.
If you can't pay your mortgage, no matter who you are, no matter the circumstances of how you got the mortgage, you will forever keep your home.
But then we are Told that the banks screwed up, that they make stupid decisions that have cost them billions of dollars.
The banks made stupid decisions, right?
But here now the banks are told that they must maintain loans that are not paid.
So the banks are blamed for making stupid decisions.
Barney Frank comes along and orders them to continue to make stupid decisions, that the federal government is going to bail out the people who they stupidly lent money to.
These are the same fools, by the way.
The same fools who 30 years ago demanded that banks issue these bad loans are demand demanding now that the banks maintain bad loans.
You see, folks, if you're a new listener here on President's Day, you have to understand the housing crisis is not brought to you by the Bush administration, and it's not brought to you solely by the banks.
It's brought to you by Jimmy Carter, something called the Community Development Act, that uh it barely got a ripple of a start with Carter, but Clinton really juiced it.
And it was all under the premise of affordable housing, that every American should have the opportunity to experience the American dream, which has always been decided uh defined as owning their own home.
So the Community Redevelopment Act, acorn community agitators all put pressure on banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back.
This became the subprime mortgage market.
People who were lent money who had no prayer paying it back.
Even after any cursory examination of their uh financial situation, indicated they'd not be able to pay it back.
They were still required.
And Janet Reno, when she was attorney general, pressured these banks with all kinds of harassing investigations if they didn't comply.
So the very government now that says we're going to bail out anybody who borrowed money who can't pay it back for any reason, now says the banks made stupid lending decisions, are now going to keep the banks, force the banks to continue to maintain loans that are not paid, which is a continuation of the problem in the first place.
Right under our eyes, right before our eyes, right under our noses.
The reason the problem occurred is being repeated.
Only this time it's not being hidden.
This time it's right out in the open with Barney Frank proudly saying fifty billion won't be enough, a hundred billion, even if we have to go higher.
It's identical.
The banks, after being railed against and now bailed out, and their executives being told what they can and can't spend money on, what they can and can't pay themselves.
Same people 30 years ago demanded that banks issue these bad loans are now demanding the banks maintain the bad loans.
So the thing that caused the problem is being repeated right in front of our eyes.
And the thing you have to understand is these are not business decisions.
These are not market decisions.
These are pure political decisions because the government is running the banks.
No wonder the credit markets aren't lending.
No wonder there's no confidence on Wall Street.
No wonder there's for crying out loud, they're being forced.
Just last week, before we left on Friday, it was J.P. Morgan Chase, and what was the other bank?
J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup said they're going to suspend foreclosures, that is, reclaiming houses that people can't pay the mortgage on until Geithner and Obama come up with their plan.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down over 2,000 points since Obama's election.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
We have some fascinating stuff from CNBC.
Last Friday on the Cudlow report, Cudlow talking with uh Charlie Gasparino of CNBC about the bank rescue plan, and they play this bite of Senator Chris Dodd from the Senate floor.
We're in the deepest economic crisis in the lifetime of any living American.
And they're worried about their pay.
Our system of economies at risk in these days.
And we'll be judged by history as to whether or not we can respond intelligently to it.
Cudlow says to Gasparino, these horrible people, Dodd says they're worried about their pay, Charlie.
Imagine that.
How materialistic.
If this little thing that he snuck in there at the last minute last night in the stimulus bill does make it into the final draft of the legislation.
It's going to change forever the way Wall Streeters are compensated.
What he is doing is saying that he is capping the bonuses.
So what he's essentially saying, and it's capped at a pretty low level for the top twenty-five guys, if you're at a bank that received more than five hundred million dollars of TARP funds, which is just about every major bank, you can only make like a $200,000 bonus or a $100,000 bonus.
What he's mandating, Larry, is huge salaries.
This is uh Gasparino's theory for how they'll overcome the restriction on bonuses.
They'll just pay themselves salaries now.
And that's where Barney Frank says, well, wait a minute now, we want some of that money back if you have a down year.
And Cudlow says, Well, look, I don't think Wall Street cares much about this stimulus plan, but I think they do care a lot about mortgages.
They don't care about the stimulus plan.
They know it's a joke.
Most of the people I talk to know it's a joke.
Over the summer, I wrote a column that basically said underlying a lot of the skittishness in the market is fears about Obama's economics, you know, his theories about economics.
I will tell you now that I was called like a wingnut.
I was called Cudlow-esque in the cardless.
And I am, but I'm glad I'm proud to be.
But you want to know something?
Look at where the stock market is today.
The market is scared of these guys because they don't think they know what they're doing.
They know exactly what they're doing.
See, that's the dirty little secret here.
The Obama administration knows exactly what they are doing.
This is an all-out assault on our capitalist system.
There is no other way to describe this.
And it has the support of practically everybody in the drive-by media to the extent that they even understand what's happening here.
And of course, the uh the Democrat parties all together.
Finally, Cudlos says, look, Geithner has uh fled to Rome.
He just he just got out of the country.
Now he's doing it under the guise of the G7 meeting, but I think he's fleeing the American media and the stock market.
When's he coming home?
When's he going to announce the so-called details of this toxic asset rescue, the secondary uh securitization market rescue, maybe this mortgage bailout rescue?
When is it all going to happen, Charlie?
Well, at that meeting, that's all everybody was asking for.
When are we going to get some details?
Because nobody really knows.
And I will tell you this, Larry.
If Tim Geitner was a conservative Republican, he would have had a bolt in the back of his head.
He wouldn't have columns uh championing him because his debut was so bad.
It was so horrible, and it sent the exact wrong message.
It did especially after the night before at the press conference, Obama had built the expectations up so high.
Well, I can't step on my Treasury Secretary.
He's going to have details.
He'll have a detailed plan.
He'll know exactly what we're going to do.
Geithner goes out there and looks like worse than Dan Quayle ever looked.
Deer in the headlights and so forth came off as a little authoritarian, which all these people are.
And oh, did you hear about Hugo Chavez?
Uh scary stuff.
Hugo Chavez, ladies and gentlemen, uh, won a referendum to eliminate term limits for himself.
Uh he was uh gonna have to leave in twenty twelve.
Now he can stay forever.
And the media covering it calls it a great shot in the arm for socialist state of uh of Venezuela.
The story about this says that the Chavez, policy-wise, is not that popular.
But people have a great personal connection to him.
They think he's bigger than life.
They trust him to do the right thing.
It sounds so familiar to the average Obama voter and supporter.
You know what the largest cash crop, the largest crop in California is.
What is the largest crop in California?
Bright.
Marijuana is exactly right.
No and listen to the numbers.
And I'll tell you why this is important, because the state of California has got this 42 billion dollar budget deficit, and allegedly the assembly realizes they're getting no tax money for it.
They're considering decriminalizing it.
For the purpose.
This is how it all happens.
This is how you get rotten socialist economic policies, which lead to the cultural rot of a society.
Marijuana is California's largest cash crop.
It is valued at $14 billion annually.
That's nearly twice the value of California's grape and vegetable crops combined.
And these are government statistics.
A recent report pegged marijuana as two-thirds of the economy of Mendocino County, a hotbed north of San Francisco.
It's not surprising.
It cost $400 to grow a pound of pot that can sell for $6,000 on the street.
But the state, oh, the state doesn't receive any revenue from this cash cow.
Instead, it spends billions of dollars enforcing laws pegged at shutting down the marijuana industry and inhibiting the adherence.
Of course, there's a reason for that.
Marijuana's social costs may include addiction, rehabilitation treatment, lost productivity, and insanity.
Yet there are these are minute compared with the extensive social costs of alcohol or tobacco.
Now, of course, just legalizing pot wouldn't automatically harvest revenue for the state.
An organized system of regulating sales and collecting taxes would need implementing, and it's possible that general drug use could rise, though the debate that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is inconclusive.
Put it all together, California could potentially wipe some $3 billion off its budget deficit by letting its people puff and pay on the largest crop in the state of California.
Woo.
This is, as I say, this is how it happens.
Economic disasters, bad economic decisions lead to a cultural rot as all of this devolves.
A quick timeout, ladies and gentlemen, we'll come back and get some of your phone calls after this.
Stay with us.
It is the EIB network and El Rushbo serving humanity just by showing up.
You know, CNBC, again, I'm not, I'm not sure exactly.
Let's see, when was I think it was Friday?
Might have been earlier this morning, however, I'm not I'm not sure.
I was sent a review, a partial transcript of a discussion on CNBC today about the porculus plan.
It's a good conversation about it's all about picking winners and losers, uh, how the wheels are coming off anyway.
The interviews are with Larry Cudlow, the guests here are um uh Dan Clifton of Strategis Research and Donald Luskin.
Uh he doesn't think the thing's gonna work at all.
But what this points out to, Dan Clifton here says uh his firm has researched the porculus bill, and companies that lobby as a greater percentage of their revenue outperform the market.
Companies that lobby as a greater percentage of their revenue outperform the market.
So we now have investment firms charting how much companies lobby as a measure of how successful they will be.
Not whether they make a good product, not what their balance sheet looks like, not how good their management team is.
It's all about how much damn money they spend lobbying Congress.
So you have financial advisors to illustrate this, charting a company.
And by the way, Microsoft is just going great guns.
This and Microsoft is said because of the stimulus to make out very well.
Well, guess what Microsoft has been doing in big numbers ever since their antitrust suit, and that's lobbying.
So this investment house advises clients to pick stocks, companies based on how much money they spend lobbying, because they will be the winners, because Washington is picking the winners via legislation.
It has nothing to do with balance sheets, how good a product is, how well the companies run, or any of this.
talks about how he tells his clients to invest in winners from the stimulus package, regardless how flawed the stimulus package is.
And one of the areas that he says that people ought to invest in is wind and solar, because Obama's moving in that direction, that Obama will do anything to make his alternative energy plan success.
So you have you have an investment investment counselor telling his clients to forget how bad the policy is, invest in the policy winners.
So essentially, Obama is picking market winners.
Cudlow said, Well, what about Boone Pickens in his win program?
And Dan Clifton says he will.
Uh And GE is going to be a winner because they're in the wind turbine business.
GE's going to be so invest in GE because they're spending a lot of money lobbying to get done what Obama wants to get done.
And I have been, you know, this makes all kinds of sense to me.
When I have watched all of these businesses go totally green, and I thought, well, it's just PR, it's just marketing.
All they want to do is capitalize on the public sentiment that buys into global warming.
Turns out that's not it at all.
They figure out what political leaders want, a figure political leaders are going to get what they want, and so they lobby to be a part of what the political leaders' desires are.
In this case, when this guy's theory is that Boone Tickens is going to make out like a bandit.
And of course, if he does, it means Nancy Pelosi will.
Because Nancy Pelosi has invested in his company.
Now, and her husband, Pelosi and her husband.
Now, for Boone Pickens' company to actually do well on the on the in the bottom line, which of course may not now be necessary for Boone to get a lot of investment in his company.
He may not have to ever do anything to get a lot of investment, just that Obama's all for it.
And if Boone does a lot of lobbying for that, then he'll get some investors.
So Boone may not even need gasoline to get back up to four bucks a gallon to succeed.
I watched this interview.
What an idiot I am.
What it is to do the economics is so simple, it's so simple, it's complicated.
And I should have figured this out on my own.
I I uh apologize.
Now, this guy Donald Luskin disagrees with he says, forget all of this and go buy gold because we're heading down the chutes, and there's nothing anybody could do to stop.
So they balanced it out.
All right, now here's the other side of this.
The other side is that, hey, somebody's gonna lobby the government for some plan that a leader wants like Obama, invest in those companies.
That is what Dan Clifton said Friday uh on on CNBC, strategic research, he said with Larry Cudlow.
Don Luskin, who uh, by the way, is CEO of Trend Macrolytics, but says here, an innovative investor for 30 years, frequent contributor to CNBC and National Review.
Don Luskin also spoke with Larry Cudlows, doesn't think this is going to work at all.
The stimulus isn't gonna work because it'll screw up the economy so bad that even Obama's winners will be losers.
He says, buy gold.
I'm not gonna dignify this nonsense, this winners in this green energy stuff.
Common sense, even if you subsidize losing ideas, you still have unprofitable country companies.
That's true.
But what do they keep bitting propped up?
What if they keep getting bailed out?
What the hell are we doing now but bailing out the losers?
It's exactly what we're doing.
So what if they keep getting bailed out by people like Obama?
He said, maybe the winners in the stimulus bill will beat the market, but if the wheels of the government come off and it goes down 30% is not gonna help to beat that kind of market, is what uh is what Luskin says.
I think, you know, the first part of this is is to me is somewhat interesting with uh you know how lobbying is now being looked at to determine in what company you should invest in terms by stock.
But all of this is just minutia that that that obscures what's really happening here, and that's we're losing our country.
We're losing the country you and I grew up with.
If this stuff goes on unabated, you and your kids are not gonna recognize it for certain.
They're not gonna have the liberty and the freedom to engage in the pursuit of opportunity and prosperity that we all had.
There isn't gonna be any prosperity to speak of, and whatever prosperity there is is going to be limited by government in terms of salary caps.
Who knows, uh who knows what else.
This is this is nothing more than a blatant attack on the capitalist system, a blatant attack on liberty and freedom.
It's about stimulating Obama presidency, stimulating the Democrat Party.
Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who walked on the moon, once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, does not believe that humans are causing global warming.
I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect.
He's among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Harrison Schmidt contends that scientists are being intimidated if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels.
In fact, I've got to find there's a story in this.
You will not.
It's got to be right after this, and I know I organized this well today.
Yes.
Here it is.
Now we know, and there's a chart out there.
The earth has not been warming since 1998.
And this year, last year, this year, colder than the previous years.
It's cooling.
Just, I mean, and this is this is not anecdotal.
Scientific temperature research surveys.
We are actually cooling.
And of course, every day we have the drive-by media, newspapers, magazines.
First thing you hear when you turn on the news, it got worse today.
The news today was even worse than experts expected.
Whatever it is, the crisis is ongoing.
Reuters has a headline, global warming seen worse than predicted.
We are cooling.
We're having record cold temperatures in over two-thirds of the country.
And throughout the northern hemisphere this winter.
Reuters says the climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted.
Spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India.
The top climate scientist said on Saturday, this guy's name is Feld.
He said the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called Climate Change 2007.
We now have data he said showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected.
Well, now what should the story then be?
If between 2000 and 2007 greenhouse gases increased far more than expected, and the temperature is is going down, what should we conclude?
That greenhouse gases lead to cooling.
China's freezing too.
China's not going through any warming.
And then there's this from businessandmedia.org.
Bill Clinton fears that climate will crater, and we won't be able to preserve civilization.
Now, Clinton used to always think that Al Gore was a little nutty on this climate stuff.
And now Clinton's picked it up.
Uh Bill Clinton fears climate will crater and we won't be able to preserve civilization.
What do you think this is all about, folks?
This is nothing more.
In fact, this the stimulus bill, the porculus bill, was sold and presented to you identically to the way global warming has been.
Everything's a crisis, everything's an emergency.
There's no truth to anything that's being said about all this.
Global warming or what the stimulus package is going to do.
It's a disaster.
And it's all designed to get you to agree to pay higher taxes down the road.
It's all about surrendering freedom and advanced lifestyles because those are the things said to be responsible for the destruction of the earth via the warming climate.
And people want to matter.
You know, people, it's a natural aspect of the human condition.
People want to be important.
They want to matter.
So some demagogue comes along and says you can save the planet by whatever.
That's when you get people doing insane things.
Like suggesting only one square of toilet paper per session.
And that came from that noted and brilliant climatologist, Sheryl Crow.
Here's Mark in Norfolk, Virginia.
As we go back to the phones.
Mark, uh, well, not go back, we're just starting.
Mark, great to have you here.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Russ.
Thanks for remaining the EIB chair on the holiday.
Thank you, sir.
Question.
Do you know in general, Rush, uh, looking at NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, do you know roughly how much the talking heads make in income a year?
Well, yeah, I can I can I can guesstimate it based on the famous faces that you know.
Well, you want to know the numbers?
Yeah, roughly.
Well, um, just a wild guess.
Brian Williams, 10 million.
Uh, Chris Matthews, five or six million.
Uh well, that's some of the good idea.
Well, the reason why I say that, Rush, is that uh I believe uh my recollection is correct that in the first round of TARP money, those particular networks, of course, are owned by GE.
And I believe that GE took taxpayer money, took TARP money.
And if that's the case, right?
Wait, it's a I just can't go on speculation here.
I just can't, because GE's not a bank, and only banks.
Well, but see, yeah, but remember, G, about fifty-five percent of GE's revenue comes from GE capital.
Oh, yeah.
Comes from the financial side.
They made lots and lots of loans.
They have lots and lots of money outstanding.
I had I had totally slipped my mind out.
You are not.
Well, my question is if that's the if that's the case, Rush, why are taxpayers being asked to subsidize these exorbitant salaries?
Can't these people uh give some back?
Can't they uh can't they do with less?
Why are we as taxpayers?
Especially in even when their ratings are going down.
This is an excellent observation by Mark in Norfolk, Virginia.
I think there should be a cap on the salary.
Brian will shouldn't uh Williams ought to not be able to make more like a million and a half.
Well, five hundred thousand.
I mean he's a good thing.
Well, that's the bonus that's the bonus.
That's the bonus.
Okay.
Well, but I mean, even you know, and his ratings are going down, so obviously they're not doing their job.
Well, actually, that's not true.
Brian, the uh NBC Nightly News had a pretty good week.
How about how about NSNBC?
Well, now that's the difference.
That that we're talking pure Thomas Crapper.
Uh-huh.
I mean, we we are since they've since they've run there's no Bush dilambas, and and of course they're they're they're trying to replace Bush with me, but I'm not an unlikable, dislikable hate figure.
Yes.
I mean, they just can't gin up all this hatred for me because I have too many uh members of the audience here who uh uh know the truth.
I'm I mean, I'm loved and adored by all those who regularly listen, like you.
Yes.
And uh there's nothing uh y nobody in the media can say anything about me to those of you who know me that's gonna change your opinion of me.
That's very true, Rush.
Uh I have one more question if I might.
Yes.
Yes.
Um I know this number is tossed around a little bit, but I like to see it a little differently, and that is the porculus bill.
I we know that eventually it's gonna be paid back by income taxpayers.
Social security is not gonna pay it back.
It's gonna come from the income tax.
I would love to know how much broken down this is gonna cost each taxpayer.
Now each person in the country, but how much this adds up to per income taxpayer.
It would be uh whether eliminated.
That's uh the I've seen I've seen some numbers of what the the share of per household you can.
But I mean per income tax.
Because we, as you know, Rush, there are not many people in this country anymore that actually pay income tax.
Right.
Well uh well no no no, there's still quite a few, but it's a dwindling number, and it will be made even less, even smaller by the porculus bill.
Yes.
Um I think your question, however, is flawed.
Really?
You really expect any of this to be paid back?
Well, um somebody uh perhaps my children or my grandchildren.
Nobody's gonna be able to pay it back.
I'm not no you're d their tax rates are going sky high, no question about it, but they're not gonna pay anything back because these clowns are not gonna stop spending it.
Good point.
I saw something over the weekend.
I've got to research this for myself to see if this is true, but supposedly the combined uh obligations of the United States government, not just the national debt.
Fifty-five trillion.
Larger than the than the combined GDP of the rest of the world.
I I saw that.
And that's that's taken consideration.
What we owe is larger than the combined GDP of the other nations of the world.
When you take the uh social security um implied in indebtedness and whatnot, I think that's true.
There's no question about it.
Social security, medic uh Medicaid, Medicare, uh all of these things.
All the bailouts, yep.
And the th they're just gonna be able to continue to print money.
It's the only way they're gonna be able to pay for these things.
At some point, at some point, it's going to implode.
Yeah, I think inflating our way out of it is the only hope that they are looking for.
That's the only way.
Yeah, well, guess who gets creamed with that?
Everybody has any kind of savings.
Yeah.
Everybody everybody.
Whether they get savings or not, well, your income is less.
Yes.
Prices of everything goes up.
Go up.
Now inflation's uh that's calm right now.
It's under control now.
But a year from now?
Two years from now.
What's that?
Yeah, inflation's under control.
For now.
Yeah.
Right on.
Give it a year.
I'm looking at all these price drops out there.
Yeah on day-to-day things.
Cars are coming down a little bit.
Uh let's see, gasoline's down.
And of course homes.
Electronics is well, but that's just because people like me buy the expensive stuff snurderly and electronics making it affordable for the rest of you.
You know, wouldn't it something like I had somebody pitch me?
I I was told, for example, just six months ago, my audio video guys said, you've got state-of-the-art rear projector for my 16-foot screen in my media room.
You've got you got there's only one other projector like this in a customer's home in the country.
It's in California.
So I get an email from these guys.
Guess what?
There's a new projector out, five times the resolution.
It goes beyond 1080p.
The manufacturer wants to bring it to your house and demo it, and they wouldn't waste their time on that if it weren't noticeable to your eye.
Now, I have one of only two projectors already, supposedly state of the art, in homes in the country today.
And already, already they're coming back at me to get this new thing in the product, because if I don't buy it, who will?
And then the price will never get down to ten or twelve thousand for the current one eighty.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh serving humanity here on the EIB network, as well as meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I want to go back to something that came up during the campaign.
I spoke about it regarding George Miller and his congressional committee and some Harvard economist, I do not remember her name.
And I warned you that big changes are coming with 401ks and IRAs, that that's a big pile of money the government wants its hands on.
They're going to eliminate my my what this woman's plan was was to restore your 401k to August of 2008 levels before the crash, and then they take it and they put it in your social security lockbox, hardy har.
And then they sell bonds to give you a guaranteed three percent return every year, and they eliminate the tax deduction for any annual contribution you make.
This was hardly denied.
These were just hearings, Mr. Limboy.
Again, you're demonstrating that you're willing to talk about things that you know nothing about.
We were just conducting hearings and no serious plan to do this.
Money magazine has a story about how folks, if you've got they're coming.
They're good.
It's being looked at.
The fact that it was mentioned last fall during the campaign, and now the economy's gotten worse, and when I say the economy's gotten worse, the government's losing money, and when the government loses money, they come get it somewhere wherever there are huge piles and stashes of money, they'll go do it, they'll go get it.
And if they uh if they think that it's costing them too much money to give you a tax deduction on your contributions every year, mark my words.
It's coming down, everything else is going to hell in a handbasket.
Why not your 401k?
It's already been cut in half or more by the market plunge.
And if you're looking around and you're thinking, well, they won't they won't do that to me.
I'm just an average citizen.
What do you think this is all about?
The end user is the average citizen.
I got the funniest email over the weekend.
Rush, do you know so it was a it was uh a philanthropy group.
Rush, do you know of any activist organizations that are actually lobbying for patients in the area of health care?
And I said, Well, isn't that what the Democrat Party's doing?
I thought the Democrat Party was all for national health care, so the patients didn't get screwed.
I thought the Democrat Party was the guardian of the average little guy.
And of course, this person wrote back, okay, touche, good point.
I wrote back, I said, Look, in authoritarian regimes, the end user always ends up getting the shaft.
And the end user is John Q. Public.
If you think the Democrat Party's looking out for you, if you think Obama's looking out for you, you have been sold and you have bought the biggest bill of goods to come down the pike.
This is all about looking after themselves.
This is all about entrenching and empowering themselves.
You ever stop to think national health care, who's it really going to benefit?
Talk to the residents of Great Britain, talk to the residents of Canada.
Find out about nationalized health care, who it really benefits.
But it isn't you.
It isn't the end user.
Back in a second.
It seems now that the senator from Illinois, championed by Obama Lloyd Burris, Roland Burris, did talk to Blagoevich's brother who hit him up for cash.
Burris has admitted this.
Republicans in Illinois think Burris ought to resign.
You Republicans need to get with the program.
This is nothing.
This is, I mean, this is chump change.
This is this is being too hard on the guy.
For credit loud, look at what how tough his life was.
He's in the Senate.
Leave him alone.
Madison, Wisconsin wants to fine you for opening your door into traffic.
▲
Export Selection