Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Not 12 o'clock, 12.06 business.
He's doing it again.
He's doing it again, folks.
Don't tell me they don't want the fairness doctrine.
Our maximum leader, the Lord gracious and most merciful Barack Obama is announcing our defeat in Iraq in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
He was supposed to go on at 11.45.
He walked out to start his remarks on how we're going to lose the war in Iraq at exactly 12.06 when this program's theme music began, ladies and gentlemen.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
God, I love the president.
I love Barack Obama.
He is so predictable.
We know what he's going to do.
We know what he's going to say before he does it and does it and says it.
Anyway, folks, great to have you with us.
Open Line Friday on the EIB Network.
One of the greatest career risks known to exist in the big world of big media.
When we go to the phones, the content of the program is all yours.
Normally, we only talk about things I care about Monday through Thursday.
On Friday, I broom that, whatever you want to talk about.
If I don't care, I'll fake it or I'll twiddle my thumbs while you wax eloquent on the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the show today, the email address, Elrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we conducted our first women's summit this week to great acclaim, tremendous fanfare, and practically worldwide coverage in the drive-by media.
It was live blogged.
It was covered after the fact on various websites and on television shows.
And this was the result of polling data from public policy polling somewhere in North Carolina.
They released a national poll on me, 46 approval, 43 disapprove.
Gender gap, though, minus 31 with women.
And so this led to the women's summit to find out just exactly, much as Obama did an afternoon summit to fix Social Security, to fix welfare.
I mean, he sent the groups out.
They came back two hours later, reported back, and the problems were solved.
So I figured it worked there.
Why not do one of our own summit, a women's summit, to find out just exactly what I might do to be able to narrow that gap?
Well, it turns out that the people at Public Policy Polling have also received their fair share of attention on this.
And they have posted new data.
Tom Jensen is who posted this at Public Policy Polling.
Apparently, our poll gave Rush Limbaugh a couple days of material for his show.
On Tuesday, he announced he was going to have female listener summit to figure out how to address the gender gap we found in his poll numbers.
And then yesterday, he actually held the summit.
You can read the transcript here.
Someone asked me yesterday if it was possible the gender gap was simply a product of it being more likely that women are Democrats and men are Republicans.
So I ran the numbers this morning by gender and party.
And here's what we got.
The gender gap among Democrats is eight.
The gender gap among Republicans is six.
The gender gap among independents is 49.
So, as Mr. Jensen reports, there is a gender gap within both the Democrat and Republican respondents to the poll, but the really huge one is among independents.
The Republican ladies love you, Rush, and I don't think you have much chance with the Democrat babes.
He didn't say babes, I just threw that in.
But you really need to appeal to those moderate women if you want to get that approval up over 50%.
So, so, this helps us target for our next women's summit the participants, does it not, Mr. Snertley?
Well, it's a challenge, but if anybody's up to appealing to anybody, it's me.
Snurdley wants to know how do you appeal to moderate women?
That's not going to be a problem.
The moderates, the undecided, and so forth, they're just waiting to have their minds bent, shaped, and formed by someone like me.
The real trick, Snerdley, is going to get genuinely independent women calling, not women who say they're independent just to get on a show and speak to me.
You had trouble keeping the idolatry calls off the air, even though we admonished them beforehand.
You had trouble keeping those off the air.
It's going to be delicate, delicate, delicate procedure here to the next time we do the women's summit, the next meeting, to get these independent, moderate, undecided women.
Because the likelihood is that they're not listening.
So, but that gives us, it's another goal.
It's another objective to try to meet here.
And, of course, we are up for it.
I want you to imagine for a moment that you're an international banker.
An international banker from Japan.
And you have about $600 billion, billion with a B. You hold about $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds.
You open your morning newspaper and you read about cramdown, where U.S. judges can rewrite the debt of mortgages.
What do you do?
Do you continue sipping your morning tea?
Do you ignore the crambound?
Do you get mildly anxious that if they can revalue mortgages, they could revalue your $600 billion worth of bonds down?
Or D, do you drop the newspaper, walk over to the desk, take out the traditional Harikari blade?
Do you wonder what in the world is going to happen to the debt you hold in the United States of America if they can just rewrite mortgages?
Have you seen, by the way, it's a sad, tragic story out there?
Violence is erupting all over the country when repossession agents attempt to go out and repossession cars that people have failed to make payments on.
Now, this led me to a question.
If we are allowing people to stay in their homes when they can't pay, when they were never intended to pay, when everybody knew they never had a prayer of paying, why in the world are we taking their cars away from them?
They have to have a way to get home, and they have to have a way to leave home.
What's the difference here?
Why are we repoing cars?
Well, see, I know, here's the thing, folks.
Even when I make jokes about liberals, most of them come true.
Therefore, it's a good bet.
Start an office pool.
It won't be long before we're going to start forgiving loans on automobiles as well.
Because it's just cruel in this worst economy in a thousand years to repo somebody's car.
Besides, we're going to need them driving that car and buying gasoline at a new 50% increase in the gasoline tax, plus the new carbon tax that's coming.
So we're going to need suckers driving their cars as much as possible.
We don't want to repo them.
Let's go to the audio soundbite.
Since the president is announcing his Iraq policy right now as we walked out of there, I kid you not.
He walked out of there from behind the stage curtain at 12.06, right when the program's theme music was starting, an event that was scheduled to start at 11.45.
You can't tell me this is coincidence.
Let's go back to me on this program, April 7th of last year.
This is what I said.
We're in the midst of the Democrat primaries.
We're coming up on Operation.
Well, they were smack dab in the middle of Operation Chaos.
And this, my friends, is what I said last April.
I guarantee you this is what's going to happen if either of these two win.
We're not pulling out of Iraq, despite what they say during their campaign.
I know a lot of you liberals religiously listen to this program while never admitting it.
Is this clear to you?
Pulling out in the Obama campaign means leaving 60 to 80,000 troops on the ground in Iraq.
It doesn't mean total withdrawal.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you realize what you just heard?
I mean, not only was that prescient, but it was brilliant.
Obama is announcing at this very moment a specific pullout date, an end to combat operations, but there will remain 50,000 uniform personnel.
I said 60 to 80, but it's not a total pullout.
His own party is upset with him because this is a 19-month troop withdrawal reduction, not the 16 months he promised.
Plus, don't forget every statement he makes has an expiration date.
It's backloaded, but this whole thing is backloaded.
So this whole speech today is just designed to get the left off his back because they're out there starting to complain about him on the cable shows.
And his buddy Bill Ayers, his buddy Bill Ayers, remember, was interviewed by Alan Colms, and they played it on the Hannity show on Fox.
And Bill Ayers said, this is very troubling when he learned that we're sending all these new troops to Afghanistan.
Very, very troubling.
It's eerily similar to 1965 when we had the promise of a brand new administration.
We ended up with Vietnam, which led me to blow up the Pentagon, which he didn't say, but that's the totality of the story.
So there's a little unsettledness.
Obama just wants to keep these people off his back.
So he's following through on his so-called promise to get out of Iraq.
Now, the thing, announcing this date is absolutely silly because all the Muhammads and the Abdullahs and Zawahiris are just to sit back now, wait till the date, see if it actually happens.
Want to take bets on whether this actually happens?
If you were a terrorist in Iraq, what would you do now?
You've got a date certain that supposedly all combat operations are coming out.
What would you do?
I'd pull back.
I'd start building barbecue joints.
I'd start building barbecue joints, little malls, sell flowers and so forth, building schools and bring the kids in there.
And then when the BAMSTR pulls everybody out, unveil and all that is just a bunch of phony fronts and open fire with the machine guns and the RPGs.
Date certain is silly.
David Rodham Gergen last night on CNN's Anderson Cooper 180.
In contrast to the Democrats on the Hill who can stand up and say, pull everybody out, he, after all, at the end of the day, has to be the president who does not lose Iraq.
He does not want to pull out so precipitously against the wishes of the- Not a Santa Claus impersonation.
I'm asking the broadcast engineer to stop.
Did you just hear what David Rodham Gergen said?
He doesn't want to be the Democrat that loses Iraq.
Where did you first hear this?
And you thought that I was nuts when I said it a year ago, two years ago.
I said they're not pulling out.
They'll be glad to saddle Bush with defeat.
They wanted Bush to fail.
They wanted the U.S. military to fail.
If I'm in that audience at Camp Lejeune, I got to bite my tongue.
I'm a member of the military.
I'm in uniform.
And I'm listening to my president, who during his campaign actually sought my defeat, sought the defeat of my military, sought the defeat of our forces in Iraq.
He was part of it, along with Hillary, along with all the Democrats, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi.
They owned it.
They attempted to secure defeat in the midst of that war.
They were happy to try to saddle it around the neck of Bush.
Now, now that they're in charge, I said they're not going to supervise defeat.
They're not going to preside over it.
And here's David Rodham Gergen once again concerning my comments, doesn't quote me, but he is confirming what I said.
Here's Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.
This is morning, Joe.
It's a tortured bit of reporting.
Chuck Todd saying Obama wants to declare the Iraq war is over, sort of.
He is going to announce the exact date of when the war is over.
I was talking to a senior official last night about this, and I said, okay, you're talking about how many troops now and when you're pulling them out.
I said, are we at war now?
Is this an active war?
And he said, well, there's active combat missions.
I said, okay.
Well, then what's happening on August 31st, 2010?
No more combat missions.
Well, that means the end of the war.
So he's announcing the end of the war, but he's not going to say that the war is ending.
He's going to say combat missions have ended.
And there's a reason for the choice of those words.
And he's not going to declare mission accomplished.
He's not going to say the V-word for victory.
So it is a weird, in some ways, it's kind of odd because I think history will record this moment as the day the president of the United States declared the end of the war.
Chuck is really tortured there because it's over, but it isn't over.
He's not going to declare victory.
He's just going to get out of there.
Folks, it's called resetting the table to September 10th, 2001.
That's what this is.
The Iraq war never happened.
The Iraq war, this is a version of nightmare, a bad dream.
He certainly is not going to announce it as defeat and may yet, I think, proclaim it as a victory.
All right, a brief time out.
Got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
Lots of audio sound bites today, plus your phone calls and another Rasmussen poll.
73% of the American people trust the judgment of people more than politicians.
This just doesn't jive with what we are seeing and hearing.
It just doesn't make sense.
We'll be back.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh and Open Line Friday, as usual.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, the government now owns 40% of Citibank.
Not good for shareholders.
When the government goes in, share value is destroyed.
Market, a little undecided.
It has been down as much as $150.
It's down 22 now.
It was about even until Obama started announcing Iraq policy, announced down 2022.
Just keeps going.
And we have the audio of this coming up later.
An expert on CNBC said in 15 years there's going to be a global bank and there will be a global currency, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd like to welcome you to Sucker Friday, announcing troop withdrawals to distract from this tax and spend budget.
Hello, suckers.
White Committee Paul Shanklin as President Barack Obama.
Of course, that's ELO's Don't Bring Me Down, parodied as I'll bring it down.
It's Open Line Friday, and let's grab a phone call.
Vicki, Lake Charles, Louisiana, you're up first today.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Oh, it's great to be on, Rush.
This is the first time I get to talk to you.
I'm kind of nervous and excited at the same time.
Well, I understand.
I've been where you are before, and I can relate.
I know.
Well, what I heard on my local radio station yesterday was that there was a vote that passed before the Senate, I believe.
I'm not for sure because I caught the very tail end of it, but it said that the so-called fairness doctrine was voted on, and they're going to bring it, you know, they're going to try to squelch you guys again.
And it passed by a margin, you know, by a vote of like 80-something.
No, that's just the opposite.
There were two votes.
Oh, my God.
There were two votes yesterday, two amendments.
The Jim DeMen amendment is what you're talking about.
And the Senate effectively told the FCC, you cannot re-implement the fairness doctrine.
It's over.
Oh, good.
No, not good, not good, because that's expected, and that's no big deal.
The Durban Amendment also passed, straight party line vote 57 or 58 to 41.
And what it does is authorize the FCC to expand the concept of minority ownership and local content rules, the contrivances I wrote eloquently about in the Wall Street Journal.
So, no, the push to censor talk radio is very, very much alive.
Now, it still has to be voted on in the Senate or in the House.
Yes.
And in the House, by the way, they've got people that want the fairness doctrine.
This is part of another bill that has nothing to do with either of these two amendments.
But look, the bottom line is that your suspicions, based on your instincts, are accurate.
It is not the fairness doctrine.
They're not going to call it that.
They're just going to go through a back door or a couple of back doors to censor that which they cannot control.
And it's that where they cannot succeed.
Liberalism does not flourish in a free market.
Think of it that way.
And we're back.
It's Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
Every day, I am a man with whom you could and would totally trust your wife, your mistress, your daughter, your little pets overnight in a quality hotel suite while you are out of town on business.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Audio Soundbite Time, the second ad by this group called Americans United for Change.
It's basically a bunch of left-wingers and union people.
The ad is hilarious.
I was minding my own business.
I was doing a show prep last night while filling out an application to join yet another club to which I have been invited.
And all of a sudden I get this note from Jonathan Martin at the Politico.
Hey, Rush, that same group is back with a new ad focusing on you.
Do you have any comments?
So I normally, I hate watching video on computers because I cannot hear them.
And it's frustrating as it can be.
And I just don't.
But This one was about me or had me in it somewhere, so I decided to give it a shot.
And I was able to hear this one.
This is the audio of the ad.
An economy in crisis.
A president determined to act.
But what did Republican leaders say to President Obama's jobs and recovery plan?
No.
What did they say to 3.5 million jobs?
No.
What did they say to tax cuts for 95% of working Americans?
No.
What did they say to rebuilding roads, bridges, and schools?
No.
So who are Republican leaders listening to?
I want him to fail.
Tell them America won't take no for an answer anymore.
I played it two or three more times.
And I remember James Carville all week and last Sunday out on the TV shows.
Mr. Rush Limbaugh is leading the Republican Party.
Mr. Rush Limbaugh is a grand poo-baugh.
He is Mr. IQ.
He is the leader of the Republican Party.
So Jonathan Martin says, he has any response to said, look, I sent him back an obscene response that I knew he couldn't use.
He said, look, you want me to run this?
I can doctorate it.
I said, no, no, no, no.
Here's what I told him.
Look, it the left needs demons.
They need demons to distract everybody while they're trying to implement what they're trying to implement.
And Bush is gone, so I'm it because I'm the only one apparently not backing down on anything.
But here's the thing, folks.
Again, I say this again.
What is so damned important about the Democrats getting Republicans to join them on any of this?
If this munificence, the Obama spending is going to result in such magic, if we're going to end up with that great utopia that the leftists of the world have always dreamed of, why in the world would they want to credit Republicans for helping create it?
Wouldn't they much prefer, after this utopia is created, to be able to point to me and to Boehner and to Newt and Eric Canter and say, they didn't want you to be happy.
They didn't want this utopia to succeed.
They tried to stop us.
That would end the Republican Party forever.
They could wipe out the Republican Party by going this alone and having it work as promised and then pointing fingers of blame at us.
Instead, they want to demonize us.
The game has become not what is Obama doing, not what are these abhorrent ideas, not this major restructuring of the American Compact, the all-out assault on liberty, freedom, and capitalism that is underway now under the leadership of Barack Obama, that's of no interest to them at all.
What's of interest to them is the Republicans are opposing.
The Republicans are stopping.
The Republicans don't agree.
The Republicans, the Republicans, this.
It's breathtaking to watch.
And remember, they want bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship only happens after one side has been defeated.
Ask the Japanese in World War II.
Ask the Germans.
Bipartisanship, same as a Limbaugh doctrine.
The only way to really get peace anywhere is when one of the combatants loses and has to surrender and is forced to change their ways.
Well, we conservatives have not been defeated.
We have not lost.
We will not defeat, be defeated.
We will not give up.
We're not going to cave in.
And we're not going to respond to all of this pressure being brought to bear to get us to join this debacle because that would truly be the end of us.
And that is what they know.
If we make the mistake of joining this boondoggle, that's when we are finished with our own voters, of whom there are 55 to 58 million.
So it's an all-out assault designed to get us to basically commit political suicide.
And of course, we're not going to do so.
Now, not all of the left unhappy about this.
Now, next soundbite is from Tina Brown, who at one time ruled the New York Glitterati Media Establishment when she was the editrix.
What was she?
Vanity Fair.
And then she moved over to the New Yorker.
And I can remember when I first got to New York, people that I had great respect for, if they got a phone call from Tina Brown, they may as well go out and have an orgasm.
Yeah, Tina Brown wants to have lunch with me.
Who's Tina Brown?
I said, well, she's Vanity Fair, Condon Has.
Oh, okay.
I never understood it other than she was at the top of the perch in the literary circles of the big apple.
So I got to know her very, I've met her maybe twice.
She dispatched one of her author, one of her writers at Vanity Fair, Peter Boyer, great, great guy, to do a profile of me in Vanity Fair in the early 90s.
And it was a good profile.
It was a good story.
Boyer has since to be heard from.
I think he does some stuff at PBS, but he took a hit.
I saw Tina Brown last.
Remember when I was in New York, it was a year ago January, Cindy Adams of the New York Post had invited me to go to dinner, and she said, after I'd agreed, by the way, we got to stop by for a screening of a Susan Sarandon movie in HBO.
I said, oh, wonderful.
So I couldn't pull out of this.
So we went to this thing and got there in the line of people at the coachek saw Tina Brown and Harry Evans, distinguished Savoir Fire husband.
So I said, hi, how are you guys?
Nice as they could be.
So you remember the profile of Peter Boyer in Vanity Fair?
Oh, yeah, very, very nice.
Then somehow I end up, she's got this new website.
And every time they put something up on the website, I get an email from her, ostensibly to plug it and promote it, which I haven't done.
So, nevertheless, despite I have been sweet as I can be.
I have been nice.
I have been a gentleman.
I have been respectful.
The only time I really criticized Tina Brown on this program was during the funeral of Princess Di when she made some Oprah-like statements about Tony Blair.
I don't remember what they...
He feels the concrete.
He feels the soil on which these people are showing up to pay their respects.
Whoa, whoa.
Made a little, had a little fun at this.
So she's on Scarborough Show today on MSNBC.
The co-host, Willie Geist, is talking to Tina Brown.
They play this ad that you just heard.
And Geist says, the party of no has become the buzz term of the last couple of days.
I think it's wonderful.
The only thing I do regret, though, is that this giant, you know, blowhard bullfrog, you know, Rush Lindbauer, is being turned into this big icon.
I mean, this is a great ad for Rush Lindbauer, too.
So, you know, I love the party of no, but I'd love it not to wind up making Rush now into this kind of giant.
He's a bullfrog with a bullhorn.
What can I say?
They're all jealous.
Tina, I have been a giant and an icon long before these cheap imitators at Americans United for Change came along.
It's just, it's getting vicious out there.
It's getting vicious.
Bush derangement syndrome is now Rush derangement syndrome, and they are deranged.
They need demons.
They need a demon to get everybody's attention focused away from what they are doing.
Liberalism cannot flourish in the free market.
Liberal talk shows demonstrate this.
Liberalism cannot.
Now, Rush, what about television?
I wouldn't call it a free market.
Those people can force feed whatever they want, and if they have a monopoly, for example, on television, which they don't, the monopoly is gone.
But liberalism doesn't flourish in a free market.
Liberals do not even argue.
Liberalism, as Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, they set up straw men.
It's like Obama at his speech.
And to those who say we must do nothing, Rove said, who's saying do nothing?
There's nobody saying we should do nothing.
And he used about 10 or 12 of these straw dog arguments.
He claims to the brain-dead IQ-less minions watching him that there are all these mean, rotten SOBs trying to stop him from making this utopia.
And he characterizes them.
These people who say we should do nothing.
These people who say, X, there are no people saying what he's claiming are being said.
But it doesn't matter because the people watching him think there are people saying so because the Messiah just said there were.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Open Line Friday resumes after this.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, as always, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have not said anything about this because it's an event that is sold out and it's not open to the public.
The Conservative Political Action Conference in their second day-to-day of a three-day convention in Washington, D.C. In past years, I haven't been able to go because there's either been the ATT Pro-Am Celebrity Golf Tournament or what have you.
I haven't been in a long time.
David Keene asked me if I would speak this year, and I said, Yeah, I will, because it's been too long since I've been there.
So they schedule me as the mop-up.
I mean, I'm it at 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
I'm a cleanup hitter.
I mean, this is the big finale.
So I figured, okay, I know C-SPAN's going to be there.
Yep, yep, yep.
Turns out now.
Well, here, listen to Carl Cameron's report on it on Fox.
Fox News is going to carry the speech live at 5 o'clock.
They've been promoing this since last night.
They're promoing it all morning today.
And I'm saying, man, I better be good.
All this attention.
Well, this is the head of the party.
No, not the head of the party.
See, this is where these Looney Tunes are missing the whole boat here.
If I'm head of anything, which I'm not, but if I'm head of anything, it's conservatism, but not the party.
No, I'm not trying to deny him, Mr. Big.
I'm trying to be humble.
I'm just trying to, you know, humility.
It's a little, I've been doing my own breakout group on the women's seminar.
And one thing we learned in that women's seminar is be humili a little more humility.
Moderates dig that.
So while I am, of course, the Mr. Big, I don't say so.
All right, here's Carl Cameron's.
You know, Clem Eastwood had it, right?
Clint Eastwood said, he's fed up with political correctness.
He's fed up with everybody trying to be politically correct.
He's fed up with nobody being able to laugh anymore.
He's fed up with not being able to tell race jokes and ethnic jokes.
When he was growing up, everybody did.
Nobody took offense at it.
Every race tells jokes about the other race.
Every country tells jokes about people of other countries.
Can't do it anymore.
And he's right.
And as such, people don't understand humor anymore unless it's liberal humor.
And liberals especially do not laugh.
I never see a happy one.
Even liberal comics are angry and filled with rage.
I just never see it.
So this program is one of the funniest programs on radio, and the libs don't get one syllable of it.
Which, to me, is sort of fun at the same time because I can tweak them anytime I want to, and they don't even know that they're being played.
Anyway, here's Carl Cameron this morning reporting live from the Conservative Political Action Conference.
The radio icon, always a polarizer.
Love him or hate him.
Liberals hate him.
Here, the conservatives at this CPAC conference are just in a lather waiting for him here.
It is the biggest turnout.
People are talking about how Republicans are in disarray and have problems because of the last election and the breakdown.
They acknowledge that here, but there's no sense of demoralization at all.
GOP and conservatives ready to get sort of back to core principles and see the Obama administration and the Democratic control of Congress as the perfect opportunity for them to do it.
Largest crowd ever is what Carl Cameron and others have been saying.
So it'll be on TV at 5 o'clock.
And by the way, I'm on time.
We're not scheduling this because Obama's doing something at 5.
And we're not trying to step in on anybody.
This is just when the event is scheduled to speak.
What?
Yeah, Sterdley, a broadcast question.
What's the question?
No, of course not.
Obama's not polarizing.
No liberal is polarizing.
Liberalism is loved.
The people who don't love liberals are mentally deranged.
It's not the result of a liberal being polarizing.
Liberals are love sweetness and light.
No, it's a good question.
Liberals cannot be polarizing.
I don't mind the label.
I don't care what they say, but doesn't matter.
Sterling, you really get caught up in these little things that people say about you.
And the day they stop saying it is when you worry.
Gail in Lakeside, Arizona.
You're on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for all you do for us.
Thank you very much.
I wanted to share quickly what I found out when I had my taxes prepared last week.
The man that prepared my taxes for me cautioned me to watch out for my tax cut, he said.
And you may want to adjust your withholding to take that back away because the tax rate tables for next year when preparing taxes are not changing.
So I could possibly owe my tax cut back to the government next year.
You've got to be kidding.
Not even I was aware of this trick.
I heard that last year.
Say that again.
Say that again.
They're not changing the rates.
Right?
The tax rate tables that they use when you prepare your income tax.
Yeah, they're not changing.
That's why these are not tax cuts.
Right.
These are transfer payments.
These are tax credits and all that.
There's no tax cut here.
I should have been able to think of this on my own.
You're absolutely right.
You're getting income.
You're going to be taxed on it next year.
Right.
And we won't be able to pay it back $13 a week.
Because the same rates.
Oh, man.
Your tax preparer is not only pretty smart, but he's pretty forthright and honest with you on this.
So what are you going to do?
Change my withholding and take my tax cut away so I don't have to pay it back next year.
Thank you, President, for nothing.
It just never ends.
It never, there's nothing real from these people.
They don't say anything they mean.
We'll be back.
We've got to take a brief time out here at the top of the hour.