All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
June 2, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plan.
I was going to say the what was once bountiful, but actually still is bountiful, but we don't know for how much longer.
Fruited plan, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882, email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
I went, checked out some email during the website, and I got some people writing to me.
He said, Rush, what do you mean if we're allowed to buy a Hummer down the road?
What in the world are you talking about?
You know, and I kind of slapped myself upside the head.
I said, what are you not getting?
Do you people, I'm sorry, not you people.
Those of you who emailed me, do you not understand what has happened out here?
Forget what happened yesterday.
We'll get to that in just a second.
The Obama administration, remember that big press conference?
Well, you probably don't, since you're asking me what the hell I mean by if you're allowed to buy a Hummer.
Obama grabbed all of these state-controlled industries behind him in a ceremony in a Rose Garden to announce speeding up new cafe standards.
Now, the people standing behind him, he said, had all come together and they had all agreed.
It was a wonderful thing.
They had no choice.
They were bitch-slapped into agreeing.
They were whipped into agreeing.
And here's the bottom line.
The new cafe standards go into effect a year earlier than they were scheduled to, and they're stricter.
By 2016, the average, the corporate average fuel efficiency or mileage per fleet is a figure that an SUV today does not meet.
Now, thankfully, corporate average means that all of the cars in a manufacturer's fleet must average the cafe standard.
So if you have an SUV that is below what the mileage is permitted to be, they have to have a lot of other podunk little cars that nobody wants in the fleet that get more mileage than the average that is required so that the SUV or the big car, big truck, balances out the little cars.
But then go to yesterday, where Obama says, while saying he doesn't want to run General Motors, spells out the kind of cars they're going to build.
They're not going to build, I'll tell you, no more muscle cars.
The Camaro may be gone.
And the Camaro is a profit.
The only muscle car they're going to hold on to is the Corvette, and they don't make a whole lot of those every year.
It's all going to be little whirlybird cars, little beanie cars, lawnmowers with seats on them.
This is mandated because Obama says we've all got to start driving this stuff to save the planet, to save the environment.
We've got to end our dependence on foreign oil.
So we move forward to today, where a ChiCom company buys Hummer from General Motors.
Now, let me give you a little history of this.
Going back to businessinsider.com, August 18th of 2008, almost a year ago.
Despite how badly GM wants to dump the Hummer, a looming global recession and high oil prices may be putting the kibosh on that plan.
General Motors have been in preliminary talks with automakers across Asia, including those in India and Russia, regarding the sale of its Hummer division.
But now the Chinese SUV maker Hunan Chang Teng has broken off talks with GM, no longer has any interest in purchasing the gas guzzler Hummer.
Their remarks do not bode well for General Motors.
So that's August of last year.
We jump forward to today, two stories.
First from the New York Times, General Motors has reached a preliminary agreement for the sale of its Hummer brand of large SUVs to a machinery, a company in western China with ambitions to become a car maker.
So the company that bought Hummer doesn't even make cars yet.
This is the Sichuan Tengzong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company based in Chengdu.
concluded the agreement.
By the way, speaking of all this, North Korea, Kim Jong-il is named his successor.
His 26-year-old son.
What's the name of the kid?
Kim Jong-un.
Kim Jong-il passing the torch to Kim Jong-un, but this is the younger son.
Kim Jong-il considers his middle son, Jong-chool, Kim, too effeminate for the job.
According to his former sushi chef, I kid you not, from the Washington Post, according to Kim Jong-il's former sushi chef, Kim considers his middle son, Jong-chool, too effeminate for the job.
This reminds me of Edward Longshanks, one-time king of England, whose son he learned later in life was gay, and he had trouble passing the torch to his son.
He had a big problem with the Scots back then.
So, Chinese company said to be buyer of Hummer, stick with me here, from DailyTech.com.
One of GM's most toxic assets has been the Hummer.
The lineup of gas-hungry mammoth vehicles fell out of favor among consumers last year as gas prices sold.
The purchase will not include the military technology or military trucks developed by AM General, the original developer of Hummer vehicles.
So, a Chinese company, Chikom company, does not make cars that wants to get into the business has purchased Hummer from General Motors.
Now, I haven't had time to read all the stories.
I don't know.
I can't answer the question right now whether or not they're going to continue to be made here or they're not going to be made here.
They're going to be made in China.
I can't tell you if they're going to be imported.
But my guess is, and that's why I said if you're allowed to buy one.
But here's the point.
Here is the point.
The Chikoms pollute this planet far more than we do.
The Chikoms in much of their industrialized sector are a third world nation in terms of cleanup, dealing with pollution and so forth.
Talk to anybody who's been over to Shanghai, Beijing, some of these places.
It's not a cool site.
Remember, they're all worried about smog at the Olympics.
They had anti-smog machines.
They're going to blow up clouds and do all kinds of things last summer.
At any rate, here we are, the greatest country in the history of the world.
Nobody has ever outdone the United States militarily, economically, in any category.
You name it.
And what are we doing?
We're heading back to the Stone Age.
We've got cafe standards that are going to put Americans in cars they do not want, while the ChiComs have just purchased Hummer for the express purpose of making them and selling them.
I would assume around the world, not just in China.
Although, again, I don't know if they will be allowed to sell them here.
It depends on how long Obama's presidency lasts and what kind of rules he puts in place during his one or two terms.
But I just think that it's such an amazing thing to even say if we're allowed to buy one in the United States of America.
A Hummer?
I'll tell you something else.
This notion that the Hummer was something different than any SUV, gas-guzzling, horrible thing, it's just a suburban.
It's got the chassis, you know, slight engine modifications, but it's got the chassis of a Chevrolet suburban.
They just put a different body on it.
In fact, this was one of the most brilliant moves General Motors ever made.
It cost nothing to develop the damn thing.
It didn't require a new manufacturing.
Well, maybe a new plant, but they didn't have to retool from scratch to build the thing.
Just design a new body, put it on the suburban chassis, gussy it up inside and make people think it's a brand new different car.
And they charged a lot more for it than they did a suburban.
But, of course, now with gas prices $4 a gallon last summer, well, there goes the Hummer.
Nobody liked it anyway.
It was an ugly piece of garbage, blah, blah, blah.
All BS.
Now, Patrick Leahy, Patrick Leahy has spoken out.
He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has spoken out on the hearings to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.
Here is a portion of his remarks this afternoon, mere moments ago, in Washington.
There won't be in June.
We'll decide when the hearing is going to be, but I'll tell you one thing that will motivate me to go sooner rather than later.
When you have vicious attacks, when leading Republicans call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan and call her a bigot, totally false and outrageous charges, and there's only one place she can answer those charges would be in a hearing.
I want her to have a chance to answer those charges.
I do too.
I do too.
So Senator Leahy has just announced that at least the first phase or one phase of the confirmation hearings will be about me.
Now, the KKK line is Tom Tancredo's.
I didn't utter the KKK line, but I did say she's a racist.
I did say she's a bigot.
And while a lot of people have said, you shouldn't talk that way, Rush, that's just too incendiary.
Nobody's denied it.
They have just said I shouldn't say it or shouldn't have said it.
However, folks, if you look at the entire speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave, in which this line was supposedly taken out of context, where the richness of her experience as a Latina would enable her to come to better decisions than a white male, that was not taken out of context.
In fact, that is and was the context of her entire speech.
Her entire speech, or a vast portion of it, was devoted to the proposition that the oath of office, she didn't say this, the oath of office is irrelevant.
That of course you bring your personal life experiences to the job.
And of course, you render decisions based on that.
She made a case for it.
This one line has not been taken out of context.
This whole speech is a disqualifying speech.
You know what else is interesting?
I have had friends of mine who are legal beagles and scholars.
They have researched her decisions on the Second Circuit throughout her career as a judge.
And they have found something very interesting.
Aside from the Ricci case in Connecticut, her decisions do not mirror the racism and bigotry of that speech.
So it's going to be hard to go back and say, well, she said this, and therefore she's going to rule it.
hasn't ruled in most of the case, there have been exceptions, but she hasn't ruled as a radical.
Her decisions haven't come down as a radical.
Although that's the wrong way to put it, because she has been reversed 60% of the time at the Supreme Court, she's been wrong on the law, but her decisions do not give you something firm you can put your arms around that would indicate she is using racial or racism aspects to come to a decision.
And the theory behind that is that she knew she had higher ambitions.
And despite her speeches, she knew that people were going to be looking at her actual decisions.
The Supreme Court is the one place you can't get reversed.
So the line of attack, the approach with Judge Sonia Sotomayor from the Republican side will definitely be, this speech will be part of it.
The context was how her race and gender make her better qualified than others.
In fact, Richard Cohen today in the Washington Post has the most, the weirdest, most incredible column about how she's just one of millions of people in the projects who are qualified for great things because they grew up in the projects.
I'll share with you the, yeah, dreams built in the projects.
I have it right here.
The question, and you go through this whole thing with the nose of a trained columnist, I detect the whiff of elitism come racism emanating from the nomination of Sotomayor.
The whiff does not come from Rush Limbaugh Noot Gingrich.
It comes from Sotomayor's own statements, blah, blah, blah, nor does it come from her controversial decision.
It comes from the general expression of wow about her background.
Imagine somebody from the projects is a success.
What's weird about this is that when Sonia Sotomayor got up to accept the nomination at the White House, she didn't talk about coming from the projects.
She didn't praise government-run and owned housing.
She didn't praise welfare programs.
She didn't praise one aspect of liberalism for getting her into Princeton and then on the courts.
She went and she went straight to traditional conservative values.
She thanked a hardworking mother.
She thanked a hardworking father.
She thanked people that worked hard.
She talked about the whole notion of working hard and not accepting gifts from anybody.
She did not thank liberalism.
Richard Cohen's out there, the projects made her who she is.
The projects, and there are many more successful people lurking in the projects.
But none of these liberals that are ever nominated for these kind of positions ever thank liberalism for getting them where they got.
They always sound like traditional conservatives, and yet when they get into power, they don't try to inspire others to follow their footsteps.
They try to get others to go the route of affirmative action, quotas, government programs and help and so forth.
It's quite contradictory.
Anyway, the Republican line of attack on Sonia Sotomayor, they're not going to be able to go to her rulings and say, see, the rulings parallel with that statement.
They can show how she's been reversed 60% of the time.
So what they're going to say, my guess, what they're going to say is that she's had ambitions and she's been very careful about some of these rulings, but that she's stealth.
She is an Obama.
And once she gets to the court, her radicalism can fully flower because there's nobody that can reverse her there.
Supreme Court doesn't get reversed except in rare occasions by another court down the line, another Supreme Court in later years.
So it will be be interesting to watch and Leahy wants to focus on her racism.
Leahy wants to focus on her bigotry.
That's fine and dandy.
Once again, the news in Washington, the hearings will be about me.
And the bottom line is it isn't about me.
This is not about me, no matter how much they try to make it about me.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll continue after this.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh and the EIV network.
Still getting email from people who think, Rush, you know, you're just going too far here when you say things like, if we're allowed to even buy a Hummer.
You know, I smile.
At the same time, I get frustrated.
It was I, El Rushbo, in 1997 who warned you that your SUV was a target and that they were going to try to get you out of it at some point.
And here it is 12 years later, and we have a president in the White House whose objective is just that.
Now, we have the audio on this.
I don't have it in my fingertips here, but you remember Obama saying we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say okay.
That's not leadership.
That's not going to happen, he said.
Just like CEOs cannot fly their jets to Vegas anymore.
Can't fly them anywhere without a bunch of guilt descending on them.
Except Obama can get on his that we pay for, go wherever he wants.
We can't drive our SUVs, eat as much as we want, keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time, and then expect other countries are going to say okay.
So you're going to run around and apologize for us.
We're going to defer to what the rest of the world wants.
This guy's got a chip on his shoulder about this country.
He intends to cut this country down to size.
He intends to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners.
This guy's got a, I'm telling you folks, wife too.
He's got a huge chip on his shoulder.
Now, how about we all know about the murder of the abortion doctor?
That's reprehensible.
But yesterday in Arkansas, we had a militant Muslim take out some army recruiters, military recruiters, because he doesn't like the U.S. military.
I don't think any marshals, U.S. marshals, have been posted to protect Army recruiters or military recruiters.
And we've been warned, of course, that, you know, this guy, this wacko, this Scott Roeder guy that murdered the abortion doctor, well, we, we got to be careful.
We can't associate with these kind of local terrorists.
Has anybody heard the name William Ayers?
Here is a terrorist that launched President Obama's political career in Chicago with a fundraiser in his home.
A man who proudly admitted to blowing up the Pentagon wish he'd gone further.
So we got a president who is associated with a domestic terrorist, is friends with him.
Guy now runs education in Chicago, Bill Ayers.
Boy, the double standard, left and right.
Incredible.
It's funny.
I'm getting deluged with emails today.
A bunch of people have said, Rush, you are wrong.
If you say the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor are not about you, they most certainly are going to be about you because you are about truth.
I'll tell you one thing.
Never forget this.
Obama chose her for a reason.
Obama wants his mirror image on the Supreme Court.
Don't make me go back and play all the soundbites to prove this.
We've done it already.
He wants his mirror.
That court to him is not radical enough.
The Warren Court was not radical enough.
The Constitution is a constraint.
You can rest assured that any judge he nominates for the U.S. Supreme Court would not be nominated if he or she was not a leftist radical activist.
For crying out loud, folks, he admitted he wants an empathy judge.
By definition, he wants a judge that's going to punt the law and write law from the bench.
You have somebody 30 real handy?
Yeah, here it is.
I just want to let you hear it in Obama's own words.
We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in a desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll be fine.
Don't worry about us.
That's not leadership.
Right.
Well, that's May 18th, 2008, when he said that, and here he is president.
And guess what?
It is a legitimate question to ask.
Will we be allowed to buy SUVs by 2016?
SUVs as we know them today.
I have no doubt that somebody's going to design a car that looks like an SUV that weighs about a matchbox or something, holds maybe two people and one sack of groceries, but it's going to look like an SUV of some kind.
Now, about this Sonia Sotomayor stuff, and Patrick Leahy, he can't wait to go into these hearings because he wants to put her racism on the table, these charges that she's a racist and a bigot.
My question, will Patrick Leahy allow Miguel Estrada to testify about the bigoted way in which Leahy treated Estrada?
Doubt it.
Will Patrick Leahy allow discussion of all the memos detailing how to derail Estrada because he's Latino at these hearings?
These memos exist.
The Wall Street Journal published them.
They've been all over the place.
Various special interest groups writing to Senate staffers.
Leahy's included, Kennedy's included.
This judge, that judge, not acceptable.
One, Estrada's bad news.
He's Latino.
And we don't want Bush to eventually put the first Latino on the Supreme Court.
We want that right reserve for ourselves.
We can't have him on there.
He's a Latino.
And then we got to have Sonia Sotomayor because she's a Latino.
Female.
So she'd be a Latina.
Latina.
Latina.
And another question, will any Republican on that committee have the guts to expose Leahy and the other Democrats for the way in which they have exploited race and have smeared previous Republican presidential Supreme Court nominees?
I mean, it's kind of funny to watch Leahy acting all outraged over Ellie's allegations.
The difference here, when I say Sonia Sotomayor is racist and bigoted and that she would bring racism and bigotry to the court, it's the truth.
And nobody's denying that.
They're just upset that I'm saying it.
Gee, Rush, she's got to dial that back a little bit.
That's a little bit harsh.
You got to dial it back.
But nobody's challenging the substance of it.
In fact, Mike grabs Steele.
Let me find the audio sound right here.
Michael Steele opened up.
Grants number 11.
And this was on CNN's American Morning Today.
Kieran Chetri interviewing Steele.
She said Rush Limbaugh called her a racist or a reverse racist.
Other people coming out saying that perhaps some of her comments do suggest perhaps she could be racist.
Where is the Republican Party headed in terms of how Sotomayor will be handled at her confirmation hearings?
Now, Steele will have nothing to say about how these hearings are handled.
He's the chairman of the RNC.
Chairman of the RNC does not traditionally consult with the Senate on confirmation hearings, but nevertheless, here is Al.
Steele answered the question.
I've made it very clear from the very moment of this announcement of Judge Sotomayor's nomination that we wanted to take a very detailed and appropriate look at her judicial record.
I think that any rush to judgment at this point is immature and inappropriate.
I don't think that, rather premature.
I don't think that we need to jump on hot rhetoric at this point.
All right.
So Steele going after me again.
Please do not send any email or call there, folks.
Please don't do this.
Please don't call.
Don't waste your time.
Do not do it.
Let the left call and pretend to be you.
But don't do it.
So once again, I should say, Chairman Steele, nobody has denied the charge.
They're just saying the charge shouldn't be made.
We're still not ready for it.
Obviously, we are not, well, Steele isn't.
We're not ginned up for the fight here that we face.
William?
Of course.
You want to take a deliberate review here, a deliberate look on the issues and so forth.
Well, as I said, they've already done that.
Legal scholars on our side have already looked at her rulings, and they're well within the mainstream, except those that were overturned.
She's been overturned at the Supreme Court 60% of the time, but her rulings do not reflect the racism and bigotry in that speech at Berkeley, nor do her rulings reflect her statement about how judges make policy.
Her rulings are, they're just bad.
They're wrong.
They're not bad law.
They're not very smart.
Her rulings are not very intelligent, but they don't contain all the bigotry and racism that was in that speech.
And the theory is that she's simply holding back.
She's ambitious.
She wants to be promoted.
So her rulings are not controversial, except that they're wrong.
The Ricci case is perhaps one of the most controversial.
It's going to be very interesting if in the middle of her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court rules, or right before the hearings start, Supreme Court rules and overturns her in late June on Ricci.
That would be delicious.
But we have no idea how it's going to be.
If the law is the law, the Supreme Court overturns.
If empathy rules the day at the Supreme Court, then Ricci loses again.
We shall see.
But regardless, she's ambitious.
She's holding back.
Once you get to the Supreme Court, you can't be overturned.
You can't be reversed.
And your radicalism can fully flower.
And again, it's why I say, if Obama nominated her, Obama knows who she is and expects what she's going to do is be a mirror image of him as a justice on the Supreme Court.
No, it's not premature.
It's smart, Snirdly.
Don't give me it's premature.
Steele might say it's premature.
Okay, I'll be premature again.
I'll repeat what I said the day she was nominated.
Here, you want premature?
Let's go premie.
Here's premi for you.
Do the hearings in Sotomayor and get to the quick of it, get to the nub of it to find out who Obama is.
Because if you explain who she is, you'll be explaining to the American people who Obama is.
And there's a reason to do that.
Talked about it at the beginning of the program.
Polling data indicates that a majority of people in most issues do not support what Obama is doing.
The approval numbers for Obama are still very high, 63-64%.
But there's a tipping point out there that's waiting to occur, and it can be forced if somebody with guts and courage who's not afraid to act prematurely can get in gear on this thing.
All right, I got to take a break.
When we come back, I got to get some phone calls, but I've also got to get to this business today of Obama saying that Iran has the right to nuclear.
They have the right to go nuclear.
Power, not bombs.
So here's another country.
Obama's foot.
They want to go nuclear.
Let them go.
Are we going nuclear?
No, we're going backwards.
Oh, and there's a story in the stack of stuff today.
West Virginia.
Obama, remember how he said he wanted to, his cap and trade system would eventually destroy the coal industry?
This story is a big contradiction of that because the story is about how Obama supports a policy, a procedure that literally chops off the tops of mountains to make coal easier to mine.
Through dynamite, he wants to blow up mountaintops.
Now, if you want to know why, you want to know why?
No.
What'd you say?
VOTE, yes, his poll numbers in West Virginia stink.
His poll, Republicans and Democrats, his poll numbers stink.
So Obama is willing to dynamite mountaintops to get the coal, to get the union vote, the minor vote, and so forth, because he's not doing well in West Virginia.
And, you know, you know, totalitarians like this, they need the image that the whole country is behind them.
And you got those hick hayseeds in West Virginia.
Obama doesn't like them anyway.
That bitter clingers in there.
But if you can blow off the mountaintops, send them down there to get the coal, keep them employed, they might turn around and start approving of the BAMSTER.
We'll be back.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, the brief departure here for a mere moment.
Moments ago, I made reference to Bill Ayers being a domestic terrorist, associated with Obama.
Nobody had a problem with that.
Have a problem with the murderer of Dr. Tiller being a domestic terrorist.
We've got to stop associating with domestic terrorists.
And nobody's concerned about the Muslim terrorists that killed the recruiters in Arkansas.
I did not get that point from any website, yet I got a note from Debbie Schwussel today who says, since you used the information on my website, could you at least give me credit for it?
Well, Debbie, I didn't get it on your website, but here's credit.
Go to Debbie Schlussel.com and read it for yourself with her and her posters.
It's www.debbyshwussell.com.
Good grief.
Mike in Las Vegas, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I just wanted to touch back on ignorance of America.
I was listening here a little bit ago.
I was turned on to your show.
I got a phone call from a great buddy of mine in Jacksonville, Florida, Jim Gonzalez, great conservative American down there, telling me about this thing with the new government motors selling the Hummer division to China.
Yes.
So I make a phone call back home.
I'm like, Mom, did you hear this about the new government motors wanting to sell the Hummer division to China?
Her response to me was, good, it's about time with all the money that we borrowed from them.
We ought to give something back.
I'm like, well, mom, don't you see the problem with that?
That the government motors now has a contract with the United States government buying Hummers for our defenses.
She said, so that ain't going to hurt us little people.
It's only going to affect them rich people.
I'm like, mom, you get your paychecks from rich people.
Don't get it.
They just don't get it.
Yeah, okay.
You were speaking fast.
I wasn't able to catch up.
I'm sorry.
My hearing was such I wasn't able to keep up with the story.
I'm flying blind.
Can you make your point shorter?
What was your point?
My point is that the American people are so blind.
They are so blind they're out of touch.
They have no clue.
And how do we go about educating them to get them caught up, Rush?
How do we do it?
Well, but what about the Chinese buying Hummer that makes the American people ignorant?
You used your mom as an example.
Well, I had called back to mom and dad's house to speak to my mother, you know, to ask if she had heard this, that the new GR government motors here in the United States is going to sell the Hummer division to China.
And she thought that was great?
Yeah, she thought that was a good idea because of all the money we have borrowed from China.
That they're giving money back to us.
Well, that's okay.
Now I understand your point.
That's, I ain't saying about your mother, but that is ignorant.
Well, okay, let's go to soundbites 27 and 28, because it deals with this.
Here's Timmy Geithner.
This this afternoon, CNBC's power lunch.
They played on CNBC a sound bite from senior economics reporter Steve Leesman in his interview with Tim Geithner.
And Leesman said, Treasury is issuing over time and not so much time, trillions of dollars of debt.
The Fed's buying $300 billion at Treasuries.
Why is this not the dreaded concept of monetizing the debt, which so many economists would warn against?
There's no risk of that in the United States because, again, we have a strong independent central bank whose obligation under the law is not just to achieve maximum sustainable growth, but to keep inflation low and stable over time.
And I know the chairman is completely committed to that.
Okay, so there's Geithner saying, no, no, there's no risk of that in the United States.
No risk of monetizing the debt.
We have strong industry central bank obligations under the law.
So Rick Santelli, he of Tea Party firm, responded to Geithner with this.
Are we monetizing?
And his answer was no.
We have a strong independent central bank.
Now, the latter may be true, but it certainly isn't an answer to the question.
And I'd like feedback, everybody, that quantitative easing can't exist without the monetization process.
We issue debt.
We print the money to buy it.
That is monetizing.
I can't believe that was his answer.
It's pretty disingenuous.
And if that's our Treasury Secretary in charge of all this activity, and that was his answer, it makes me nervous.
Blatantly saying they're not monetizing when the March statement, for the first time ever, expressed quantitative easing and put it on the map.
I just think that that's the wrong answer.
He's not telling the truth.
Well, there it is on CNBC.
Rick Santelli, who they reined in once before, has somehow broken free and wandered off the reservation and just accused little Timmy of lying.
And of course, Santelli is right.
We are monetizing the debt.
That's very, it's very what monetizing the debt is.
We issue debt.
We sell treasuries.
We do this or that.
Then we print money to buy it ourselves.
Because they have these auctions.
Treasury auctions are not raising as much money as they are projected to raise.
We sell treasuries and monetizing the debt is we issue the debt, meaning, okay, we've made a decision to spend $12 trillion we don't have.
So that $12 trillion of debt.
Well, you have to monetize it.
I mean, the $12 trillion, $12 trillion has to be something.
So you print the money.
Now, we're not going to print all $12 trillion.
We're going to print it as we need it.
That's why there's still time to stop this with elections in 2010 and 2012.
Right now, the deficit, probably this year, $2 trillion, but it's going to be all this other stuff coming up.
It'll be more like four.
So you print the money to monetize the debt.
Therefore, it's inflationary.
The CHICOMs are dead right about this, and they're scared to debt that we're monetizing our own debt.
You should be too.
And Geithner over there telling the Chinese we're not doing that?
That's just absolutely absurd.
And they're laughing at it in these meetings.
Well, the bat Reuters has that.
Okay, so the Hummer, the environmentalist, the UAW, our government chased them off to the CHICOMs.
They're going to be built by CHICOM workers, and they're still going to be putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wouldn't it have been better if we could have continued to build them here at a lower wage rate even, but still employing more Americans?
No, no, no, no.
The government, UAW, and the environmentalist wackos will not allow it.
We've got more of your phone calls coming up in the next hour.
I promise.
▲
Export Selection