All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:25
February 17, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, of course, make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
And that's because we have a mining operation for the truth.
We dig deep.
We find it.
We proclaim it.
We cause people to go nuts.
That means you have to have courage.
The courage to deal with the truth to listen to this program and not go insane.
Here's our telephone number, 800-282-2882.
The email address is L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
I want to go through this whole this little quote from John Adams, one of the founding fathers, once again.
I went through it rather quickly in the first uh first sentence here could maybe perhaps not be understood as quickly as I went through it.
He said, We, meaning the founding fathers, the United States, we have no government armed with the power, capable of contending with human passions, which are unbridled by morality and true religion.
Meaning we have not written a constitution, we do not have a government here that is capable of dealing with the kind of human emotions that are found outside morality and true religion.
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
That's John Adams, one of the founders.
Now, of course, people who are unbridled by morality or the immoral, if you will, and the and people who are not truly religious.
This uh this this constitution, of course, and he's dead right.
I mean, he was one of the one of the founders.
This constitution doesn't, it's a restriction to them.
I mean, it is punitive to them.
And he said, as our government we're not capable of dealing with this, this constitution cannot deal with people like that.
And uh it was it was an interesting uh uh prophecy he had in uh essentially here because the very people trying to undermine the Constitution because it's an obstacle to them are the very people that we've put in power lately over the years,
uh both at the state level, in some places the city level, and in some instances at the United States government level, the federal level, a constitution is under assault uh by by people who just who find it uh restrictive uh and and unpalatable.
And then this is one of the great battles in which we find ourselves today.
And it's something that I don't know how how do you how do you uh how do you come to a compromise with people like that?
Everybody said, well, we gotta compromise Russia by partisanship.
We gotta we gotta all get along.
How do you do that?
I I I how do you how do you compromise good versus evil?
How do you compromise victory with defeat?
When as I said last week, should Jesus have made a deal with Lucifer?
Shouldn't Jesus have made a deal with Satan?
I mean, how would that deal have come out?
What would the compromise there be?
So I'm sure it's it's a great, it's a great um it's a great illustration.
Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned this story yesterday, and here are the details.
It's an AP story from Helen of Montana, a new national limit on lead in children's products, which has toymakers scrambling for new testing methods and retailers scrambling for storage space for inventory that they're not sure they can sell, is forcing motorcycle dealers to pull dirt bikes off of showroom floors.
It became illegal on Tuesday to sell off to sell off-road machines geared for children younger than twelve because parts in them contain lead at levels greater than 600 parts per million.
More uh motor vehicles have uh most motor vehicles have such parts.
I think they took this law a little too far, said Margie Hicklin Cruel, the owner of Red Line Sports, a sports bike dealership in Butte, Montana.
I've never had anybody come in and say my child keeps putting parts of his motorcycle into his mouth.
So you you you could say here that government regulations are amount to ruin yet another business.
There is also this this lead rule, and I'm I'm unable to get to the bottom of this.
I've I've people have been sending me so much stuff, and I've gotten confused now.
The esoteric analysis of this, it's above my pay grade to listen to some of these scholars write about this stuff.
But apparently there's it's possible, and I'm I'm not sure if it's the case.
Some people believe that it is, that children's books, hardcover children's books printed before 1985 will become illegal because of lead content in the manufacture of some hardcover books.
Now, some people say, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is this been changed.
Others said no, it hasn't been changed.
It's like so many other things in the stimulus bill.
Most people don't know really what's in it yet.
And won't know until it's signed this afternoon, and people start implementing what's in it.
Do you realize people can do whatever they want, say it's in the stimulus bill, and who is going to know?
Nobody has read this thing.
So the stimulus bill can be pretty much what anybody wants it to be.
It would seem to me.
But the dirt bike provision here is uh is a pretty serious thing, and it's uh you know, more government regulation ruining or threatening to ruin yet another business under this uh this the the rubric here that we just can't police ourselves, we can't protect ourselves, we're too stupid, we're too idiotic to know what's good for us, or at least a few of us are, and since some of us are so stupid and incompetent, rules have to be written for all of us.
In Australia, householders would be charged for each flush of their toilet under a radical new toilet tax designed to help beat the drought.
The scheme would replace the current system which sees sewage charges based on a home's value, not its wastewater output.
Now, this is just another example of taking a crisis, a real one like a drought, or a fake hoax crisis like uh global warming, and turning it into an opportunity to tax people to get into our lives, in this case, literally the bathroom.
And it's you know, it's these little small things that uh that add up to big things later on generally.
And I don't know how you stop this.
It's all you can do just to be aware of all these restrictions that are being placed on everybody.
The uh the tax for each flush of the toilet would also apply to water used by showers and so forth.
It would encourage people to reduce their sewage output by taking shorter showers, recycling washing machine water, or connecting rainwater tanks to internal plumbing to reduce their charges.
Some people may go as far as not flushing their toilet as often because the less sewage you produce, the less sewage rate you pay.
People have been frightened to talk about sewage because it's yucky stuff, said Professor Young.
Said sewer pricing needed to be addressed as part of the response to the uh water crisis.
This reform taxing your toilet every time it's flushed, would see the abolition of the property-based charge with one-based pay as you go rate.
I wonder if they know how that sounds.
A toilet tax called the pay as you go rate.
I mean, you could you could not make this up.
It's just like the story on a buffalo.
It'd also be a small fixed annual fee to cover the cost of meter readings and pipeline maintenance, maintenance.
In places like the city of Bel Air, Texas, which is a suburb of Houston, they do this and the system seems to work.
See, this is one of the tricks.
They find some some obscure place where the scheme they want to mandate is, quote, working beautifully, as a way to make otherwise busy people think it's okay and acceptable.
You know, it always reminds me of that old saying.
If everybody was jumping off the bridge, would you do it too?
The other trick is to say that your area has the lowest tax in something.
Uh we got the lowest tax on water in the state.
This is to guilt you into thinking it's time To pay your fair share of taxes by allowing yourself to be taxed every time you flush your toilet.
It's in Australia right now because they're having a drought, but liberals are liberals everywhere.
They think the same way.
And with the rate we're printing money, and as budget deficits are piling up, believe me, this is just the beginning of the creative ways liberals are going to find to generate revenue in Boston.
A tentative plan to overhaul Massachusetts transportation system by using GPS chips to charge motorists a quarter cent for every mile behind the wheel has angered some drivers.
It's outrageous.
It's kind of Orwellian, big brotherish, said Senator Scott Brown, a Republican Rentham, who drafted legislation last week to prohibit the practice.
But a vehicle miles travel program like the one the governor may unveil this week has already been tested in Oregon.
So see it work someplace.
It works someplace in Oregon.
Oh, this is so wonderful.
Works there.
And I I uh uh what was a work we're gonna we're we're gonna we're gonna try it here.
Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island, as well as the federal government also are talking about such programs.
In North Carolina, a panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
The uh the big brother issue was identified during the first meeting of the task force that developed our programs that Jim Whittie oversees the program in Oregon.
Everything we did from that point forward, even though we use electronics, was to eliminate those concerns.
Oh they just gonna pile up every revenue generation scheme they can, because they are out of money, and we've got to go.
Brief timeout will come back, some phone calls, audio soundbites waiting right after this.
Okay.
We go to the phones, we return.
This time it's uh Hillsdale, Michigan.
This is Sean.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing today?
Just fine, thank you.
Good.
Rush, I'm calling about the uh the CPSIA or the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of uh of uh two thousand and eight.
Yeah and how it's affecting some of the small businesses around this country.
Well, that's the lead rules, yeah.
The lead rules, exactly.
You've uh you've referred to them in your last bit there.
Uh there's two things about this act that that really I think uh need to be brought to light.
And uh and and the first one is uh how the act came to be.
You know, I've I've been around the the uh automotive industry for years, and when legislation and regulation came into those industries, uh there was years to react, years of time to be able to react to new rules and and redesign products and whatnot.
And uh this act was passed last August.
Uh it it uh it was kind of sprung on everybody this winter, and now companies like mine who who manufacture products for the the uh off-road motorcycle market are literally blindsided and and given only a few weeks to react to this uh this whole thing.
And and I think that's one of the reasons why there's so much uproar around this uh this new uh uh legislation.
Well, there is the uproar's just now starting to build.
I wouldn't even call it an uproar yet.
I I think it's just now starting to percolate.
I don't think it's reached uproar status at all.
Which is why we here on the cutting edge of societal evolution, if it's gonna be big, we'll tell you about it when it's small.
And and this uh you're in the dirt bike business, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Our company focuses on the youth off-road market, mostly on the high performance end of things.
We're the we're the only manufacturer in the U.S. of this kind of product.
Uh we're we're a small business.
We we uh we have under 50 employees, but we we use uh several manufacturers around the country for our products.
We actually have about a hundred other companies that rely on on our business to help stay in business.
So the tentacles that are out in the marketplace uh are even though we're a small company are pretty deep.
I know this is uh it's sad.
It's happening to every industry that that the government attacks uh the Congress has attacked the private jet industry.
You wouldn't believe a number of orders that have been canceled.
Uh the the the the ripples throughout that industry which are trying to chronicle last week are profound.
I had a story yesterday that I did not get to, but it was a story about the Ritz Carlton uh at at Half Moon Bay in California.
They've had thirty cancellations of uh of golf trips, conventions, business golf trips, because these people simply don't want to go someplace nice to appear conspicuous.
So the ripples of commerce, the ripples of the of the uh the the these attacks and the class envy uh are are happening throughout the country.
Your business making dirt bikes, it's all about I read a story that there are uh some some retailers, Sean, that have a hundred million dollars worth of inventory they may have to take off the uh off the shore room in weeks just to comply with this stupid law because the kids, of course, are gonna come in and lick the lead parts that are that are in these dirt bikes, and of course they might get sick and die and so forth.
It's um this this is a tragedy that's happening throughout the American capitalist system.
There's an all-out of salt on it.
Yeah, yeah, there is, and Rush to to uh clarify one point there, um they've already taken their product off the shelves.
This is this is uh this has happened last week.
The the big four manufacturers, the big four being uh Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, and uh and Yamaha, they've they've all mandated that their dealers take everything off the floor.
And this weekend I was at a trade show, I talked to a lot of these dealers, and and a lot of them are on the brink anyway because of uh the shape our economies in.
This is enough in many cases to just push them over the edge.
Right, because if you can't put your product on a showroom, if you can't display it, how do you sell it?
That's it.
That's it.
So the that that's the first part of this issue.
The second part that needs to be uh brought to light is is the testing requirements that the CPSC is putting in place.
And they put a reprieve of one year on these requirements.
But the fact of the matter is is that each and every component of one of these kids' products, and it can be a motorcycle or it can be anything, but as of February of 2010, each and every component has to be tested by a third party government accredited laboratory.
And we've done some initial looks into this.
We've uh obviously tested a lot of our parts already uh from non-accredited labs because the the accreditation process isn't even done yet.
Uh but to do this is going to cost us about one year of revenues, which is, you know, obviously that's going to put companies like ours completely out of business.
Why don't you pass the uh prices on along and the uh you know amor amortize it over an annual bunch of sales, pass it along to the buyers?
Sure, sure.
I mean that's I think that's the mindset of of the people that it wrote the legislation, but you and I both know that that's uh that that doesn't work that way.
Obviously.
They they think you can pass your costs on like they can.
Yeah, sure.
Well, now let me ask you you've you've done a lot of look into this uh or looking into this.
Do you people hear you speak this way, and they just can't believe that their own government would take action like this so punitive as to put an industry out of business.
But that's a real possibility with you, isn't it?
Uh absolutely.
It's and it's not just dirt bikes.
I think dirt bikes and and ATVs got brought to the forefront mostly because the companies uh and and I'm not speaking of of my own company in this case, but the other big companies that are in this business uh are big targets.
They're big targets for trial lawyers, they're big targets for legislators, and they don't want uh to appear dirty in this whole thing.
So they've now you see you just you just mentioned one of the motivation uh ideas for doing something like this.
This is this is a pure payback to the trial lawyers for their uh loyal support, hefty donations to the Democrats.
You come up with all these ridiculous laws like lead in books, children's books before 1995, lead uh uh above a certain allowable limit in uh say the product you manufacture, and you just open the door for tort lawyers to come in here and and and round up supposedly aggrieved citizens who were unwittingly purchased or who unwittingly purchase one of these products, their kids then got it home and it's sort of licking it and got sick and so forth.
And why didn't you tell us these were dangerous if you ate them?
We thought motorcycles were to be driven, but my kids tried to eat it and I get kid guts, and you know the jury is gonna say, you evil rotten manufacturers, because the Democrats have done such a great job of creating hatred for for big business, small business in this country.
So that's one of the inspirations for legislation like this is to provide a target rich environment for um for trial lawyers who need movement.
They need movement.
They need people having accidents.
Rush, I'm not so I'm not so sure that some of the motivation behind this wasn't uh uh wasn't uh kind of uh uh a trade barrier in disguise as well how so explain that to people well uh uh the if you if you look at the history of this whole thing and how it got started uh it really came about what was it maybe a two years ago when when lead was found in in infants toys and most of those infants toys in fact all the ones that had lead in them uh happened to come from China so
So there was outrage.
There was lots of talk about what are we going to do about this, and the CPSIA really is the end result of all that.
But I think, and this is just a guess at this point, but I think what was kind of a feel-good piece of legislation that nobody was willing to vote against because it was for the children ended up throwing a huge net over many industries that nobody even anticipated, and dirt bikes are certainly one of those.
But I think that the government in some way didn't really think through that a whole lot because they were thinking, well, you know what?
China's involved here in a lot of this.
It's kind of a punishment and a payback for taking jobs away, so to speak.
And there was no thought of the ramification it was going to have to American businesses.
The old unintended consequences.
Sure, sure.
Well, you are very charitable to your government who has passed legislation that could essentially shut you down.
I don't buy this unintended consequences business.
Too many of them.
Too often, too frequently.
And I think we have a Democrat leadership now who professes a full disdain for our capitalist system, and whatever they can do to change it, they'll do.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Limbaugh at 800 two eight two two eight eight two back to the phones to Connie Nebraska I think it says Carney Nebraska Jennifer welcome to the program hello.
Hello Rush how are you just fine thank you.
Um I wanted to just congratulate you on your MSNBC uh Keith somebody um he put you at the worst person last night you were number one so congratulations to you.
The uh what worst person or something?
Yes I believe it was and so it was very it's a very funny bit and he tried it was a horrible impersonation of you so but congratulations so they're the Republicans proud you're the one person that saw it um that network doesn't have any viewers oh I we only did it to flip through we were flipping through the channels I figured it had to be from channel survey because nobody watches that network anymore.
Well they said uh Keith said something about uh we're gonna have the number one worst person up next and we were like oh well let's just see what they say and and and my boyfriend who's a longtime listener um just thought it was absolutely hilarious that you know you did the Republicans proud thank you.
Well thanks Jennifer very much just so you know this is about the twenty third hundred time in the last three or four years I have uh I have won if you will that high and distinguished honor.
Oh but you did us proud.
Thank you Jennifer appreciate it.
What was that HR?
What was it?
Yeah I know I just they don't have Bush to kick around it's me.
See I mean that's they've these people need demons.
They need enemies.
The only way they can survive Elliot in your Belinda California hi and welcome to the EIB network.
Hi Rush I've been trying to get uh this point across for weeks.
Obama and this shows his naivete about economics Obama may be trying to control the U.S. economy but he can't control the global economy and here's why I think this is going to be even worse than people think.
When the global economy recovers, capital is going to look for its best and highest use.
Why would anybody invest capital in the United States if it's perceived that our growth is going to be slower than the rest of the world.
China and India I think it's the well China and India those are Just two nations in the global economy, I think our I think we're going to recover faster than the global economy does.
Well, the other point I wanted to put across was that a lot of these U.S. companies get more than 50% of their business from overseas.
I'm very concerned that if the U.S. economy is laboring under taxes and debt, that you're not going to see these these big companies really care as much about the United States.
They'll open factories more factories overseas and they'll sell their stuff in other countries.
Well, I guess that's I guess that's possible, but I do think, you know, i i that all hinges on your theory that the world economy will rebound faster than ours.
I still think we drive the world economy, and I think that when we start recovering, that'll pull the world around with it, but it's going to take us recovering before the world comes around.
Well, we'll see.
Europe used to be the driver of the world's economy.
Yeah, but they haven't been in who knows how long.
They gave they gave up their empire.
Yeah.
And we gotta be careful.
We just gotta be careful.
We gotta keep the capitalist system going.
Well, I agree.
The capitalist system is sort of ingrained in us.
Um, you know, one of the things that that I've always pointed out, and I've and I'm an eternal optimist, which is why, you know, I uh it it's it would be a mistake to say that the stimulus bill is going to wipe us out.
What is more proper to say is that we now have elected a president and we have a Congress made up of extreme radical leftists, and they're gonna take aim at capitalism, and it's gonna be an epic battle.
Will they be able to fundamentally transform this nation into what would have officially technically be called a socialist nation?
I was watching Fox this morning, I have not seen the story they were using.
Well, I was yeah, I was watching and reading close captioning, but they uh the slug line or the Chiron, the graphic.
The bottom of the screen said that experts now say U.S. is officially a socialist nation as compared with how much government owns businesses in in nations we already recognize as socialist.
We are nationalizing banks, and there are more and more people coming out suggesting we should nationalize banks.
Uh Obama has destroyed welfare reform in this stimulus package.
We've got the architecture and the and the infrastructure put in place for national health care.
I mean, this stimulus bill by itself is going to do tremendous damage down the road.
The question is, will it do damage immediately?
Is this stimulus bill large enough to overcome the capitalist entrepreneurial tendencies of Americans?
Look, this has always been the case.
At some point, during this economic down cycle, people are going to be fed up with being in a downturn, and they're going to take things and matters into their own hands, and they're going to start new businesses, they're going to do this and to deal with prevailing conditions, and they're going to get sick and tired of having a you know a rotten economy with no job prospects.
They're going to take matters into their own hands.
This is going to cause a recovery of sorts.
It's always happened this way.
Even when uh taxes are increased on the rich, you'll find most people just working all that much harder to try to make that much more money so that they don't have a net loss due to the tax increases that have happened.
There are varying degrees of industriousness among people in this country.
One of the troubling things is that this stimulus bill is going via welfare reform, getting rid of it, is going to create more welfare cases, is going to create more dependence.
Wait till we get to to uh we get back to amnesty and legalizing all the illegals in the country to register them as Democrats.
I mean, there is a race.
There is a race here to beat capitalism.
The question is, can capitalism overcome this based on these these gazillions of individuals in this country that you don't know and I don't know, they're faceless, they're nameless, but they're the people that make the country work.
They're just not gonna sit back and watch their futures go to hell.
They're gonna take matters into their own hands and try to do something about it.
The point is, will they be taxed to death down the road in order to support all of the deficits combined with inflation that are being created by this one piece of stimulus?
Then we haven't even gotten to TARP two, which is gonna be a trillion dollars, the nationalization of the banks.
And we haven't even gotten to stimulus two, which is going to happen.
And one of the reasons it's going to happen.
Look, we've got things that we can measure here.
Right off the bat, this thing's going to get signed in one hour.
If we don't see unemployment drop in two months, we can say it didn't work.
And we're going to we're going to proclaim it loudly that it didn't work.
If we don't see a bunch of new schools being built, if we don't see a bunch of roads and bridges being repaired above what's already happening, we're going to say, hey, this isn't working.
Because I'll tell you what's going to happen when the economy rebounds for whatever reason, and it will not be the stimulus package, but we have a totally in-the-tank, sycophantic, they're going to die of anal poisoning someday media that cannot wait to credit Barack Obama for any the smallest little economic untick uptick.
If, for example, this caterpillar guy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.
If the caterpillar guy within, say, three weeks of the stimulus being passed, remember he's on he's on uh Obama's economic advisory team in the White House.
Let's say a month from today, Caterpillar announces they're going to rehire a thousand people.
Do you realize what the news is going to look like that day?
Because what's the story now?
Sorry as Obama went out and said, Caterpillar guy CEO told me if the stimulus is passed that we're going to start hiring people.
The next day, the caterpillar CEO says, eh, not quite sure.
I think we're still facing layoffs.
It's going to be a little while before we can start hiring back.
Okay, so that's where we are.
What if in a month caterpillar starts hiring people?
Uh I think you should look for bigger headlines in the New York Times than on VE day.
The headlines will be bigger, the first economic report that's an uptick than they were for when we won in World War II.
The fix is in, folks.
The fix is in to make this guy the most successful, the most rapidly successful president ever.
And that's why if unemployment in two months is still going up, this is a failure.
If you don't see any new schools, if you don't see any roads being repaired, bridges, blah blah blah-blah-da-bada, then we're gonna proclaim it a failure.
Because we're being but rush, but Russia Obama says it's gonna take a while.
They're saying all kinds of things.
I'm not gonna react to what they say.
They're saying it's gonna be a long time.
I think they're just lowering expectations.
I think one of the reasons they really hustle to put this through is that they know at some point the economy's gonna recover.
They want to be able to give the stimulus package and thus Obama credit for it.
That was one of the real reasons for haste.
In addition to getting a bunch of pure garbage in this bill passed into law before anybody could uh see it.
That in a moment.
Okay, folks, it's audio soundbite time.
Want to go back, we found this uh this is uh from Breitbart TV.
It's a 1998 C-span forum at the Brookings Institution, a state of the cities forum, and involves Obama and this soundbite indicates or Barba Barack Obama tells us plainly that he disagrees with the 1996 welfare reform bill signed by Bill Clinton and wants to do away with it, which he has done in the stimulus bill to set it up a question from an unidentified liberal wearing wire rims.
Just the other day when the uh House budget resolution was prepared to cut uh billions of dollars from the uh welfare block grant uh before the states even figure out really how to spend it.
What are the coalitions that you see might possibly be put in place that could reverse some of that?
Okay, so the question is how do we reverse welfare reform?
And here's Obama's answer.
I was not a huge supporter of the uh the federal plan that was signed in 1996.
I do think that there is a potential uh political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform, and that is to desegregate the welfare population.
Meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities from the working poor, deserving white, rural as well as uh stop tape, stop tape, stop tape.
So here you have, I mean, I'm I'm hearing, I hear racism here.
What Obama says, I do think there's an opportunity now that we've got welfare reform, because welfare reform required work.
And the way that it did it, the states used to get an increasing amount of money per welfare recipient that they signed up.
Welfare reform simply capped the amount of money they got.
There was not an automatic increase.
They had to make do with what they got.
They had to pair the rolls.
They had to get fewer people or more people off welfare so that fewer people were on it.
That required work, and it is worked tremendously.
So Obama didn't like that because he wants as many dependent people as possible.
And he says he sees an opportunity here to desegregate the welfare population, meaning the undeserving poor black votes in cities from the working poor, deserving white rural as well as suburban.
So he thinks that welfare reform was punishing blacks.
He thinks the welfare the welfare reform bill of 1996 was a punishment of blacks, and it helped the working poor because they already had jobs.
So he saw racism in it.
And now let's pick up his answer at that point.
Now you've got just a bunch of folks who are struggling at the bottom of the economic lab.
And that means that, at least from my perspective, the political strategy and the political coalition to put together, and this relates to the issues of housing that we just talked about in mixed-income communities.
I think is to think about where are the areas where you are not just helping welfare people, you know, folks on welfare, but how are you helping folks who are not currently making enough money in the economy to support a family and pay a mortgage and send their kids to school.
So basically he says here in this in this answer that he was committed to um he was he was committed to undoing it.
It is so it is a he saw an opportunity here to undo it the minute it was enacted and the way it was enacted, and it has now happened.
Now I bring this up, and I mention this to you precisely because this audio is from 1998, eleven years ago.
This is how long Obama has been calculating various elements of his of his desires uh to shift the common structure of everything that goes on in this country, and welfare reforms one of the things, of course, national health care socialized medicine is going to be another one of these things, but it's starting to come to pass.
The new welfare reform gets rid of the caps.
Well, the the killing of welfare reform, the stimulus bill gets rid of caps.
The new the stimulus package says, you know, it's not a good thing that we reduced welfare roles.
It's not a good thing that people went back to it.
That's not a good thing.
So the states are now going to get even more money per welfare recipient they sign up.
It's the same way it used to be under AFTC.
Aid to families with dependent children.
You remember those days where the uh the single mother got increased welfare for every child she had out of wedlock with no husband around, and it led to cultural decay, like you can't believe it's one of the reasons welfare reform was designed to change it, and it worked.
Obama wants to go back to it.
Now you might say, why?
Why does he want to go back to that?
Remember, all this is about is the Democrat Party, and this is about Obama's presidency.
The more dependent, helpless people they have, the less opposition they're gonna have.
Remember, Obama is not about a level playing field.
He is about removing the play, he's about clearing the debts.
He's about clearing the playing field.
He doesn't want there to be any opposition, and he's if he can create as many dependent people as possible.
I mean, this is axiomatic.
On government, create as many dependent people on government as possible.
Guess who they're going to vote for?
I mean, you saw evidence of it at Fort Myers Town Hall.
Mr. Obama, get me a car, get me a car, give me a kitchen, get me a new uh house, give me uh give me a better job.
I'm working at McDonald's four and a half years.
What are you gonna do to help me?
This is exactly what he wants.
He loved those answers.
Don't think for a moment he was embarrassed.
You know, here's the this is a clincher, though, folks.
This is what gets me.
The states are not out of money.
You could look at any state budget this afternoon, and in an hour you could find billions of dollars of crap to cut out of their redundancies.
And this is what gets me.
We're all being gulled into thinking that we're not paying enough.
The states are out of money, the poor are suffering, it's horrible, it's unhuman out there.
We're paying enough to do what she'd be done to maintain life in a safe and healthy way, but the libs have added in all this garbage, and that's what we can't afford.
The states are not out of money.
There's plenty they could cut, just like we have to cut when they raise our taxes.
But they never did.
Back after this.
You uh left-wing extremist radicals out there might find this interesting, despite Obama's promise of a more open government, the Justice Department, his Justice Department, is resisting pressure to release documents the Bush administration kept secret about wiretapping data collection on travelers, U.S. citizens, interrogation of suspected terrorists.
Obama wants to have the same authority and power.
▲
Export Selection