All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 6, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
November 6, 2009, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchor man sitting in.
Mark Stein, I'll be here today.
Rush will be back on Monday, ready to start another fine week of excellence in broadcasting.
It is always an honor for me to sit behind the golden...
Actually, I was going to say the golden EIB microphone, but Rush took the golden EIB microphone with him to Los Angeles, and it's not coming back.
So now we just have the dull, what is this thing?
The lead microphone.
It's been custom built to my presentation style.
Wonderful thing.
The lead, is it radioactive lead?
Is it one of those is it just the lead paint that'll that'll that'll completely screw up anything I say years from now?
They'll be saying when I'm on the overnight show on WZZZAM, they'll be saying it makes no sense now.
It'll be the lead paint from the lead EIB microphone.
Open line Friday 1-800-282-2882.
That means you can talk about, you can talk about anything you want to talk about, except as we said at the beginning of the show, cricket.
No cricket talk.
We're not going to have any googlies, not going to have any made and overs, not going to talk about Sri Lanka's performance against New Zealand.
None of that.
But anything other than cricket, you want to talk about 1-800-282-2882.
You want to talk about Uyghurs?
Normally, when I'm sitting behind the lead paint EIB microphone, I like to have a couple of Uyghur stories on the go, but we don't have any Uyghur stories today.
But if you know of one that we haven't got to, do call me up.
We were talking in the first hour about the sudden jihad syndrome that manifested itself fatally at Fort Hood.
We are really at the 30th anniversary of America's first contemporary engagement with radical Islam.
30 years ago, the Iranian hostages were seized at the embassy in Tehran.
Don Rumsfeld, a couple of years before that, Donald Rumsfeld was speaking in Washington and he used a line, which I think is a terrific line, weakness is a provocation.
That is why those hostages were seized in Tehran 30 years ago, because the entire Jimmy Carter presidency was weakness, and that weakness was a provocation to America's embassies all over the world, including to what were then a bunch of nickel and dime Islamic revolutionaries in Tehran.
What catapulted them into the Big Lee?
It wasn't so much the Ayatollah toppling the Shah.
It was that these guys decided we're not bound by even the most basic rules.
And no rule is more basic, by the way, to relations between sovereign states than respecting embassies.
Nobody had to worry about the U.S. Embassy in Moscow being seized by the Soviets.
No one has to worry about the U.S. interest section in Havana being seized by Castro.
But the Iranians weren't even on that level.
They understood that Jimmy Carter was a weakling and that weakness is a provocation, and they seized those hostages 30 years ago today.
This is the season Of anniversaries.
20 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, the symbolic end to the Cold War, which the good guys won.
The right crowd won.
Eastern Europe was a prison, a totalitarian prison that had taken half a continent.
And the great symbolic moment when that prison regime fell was when the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago.
Barack Obama has chosen not to be in Berlin for that.
If they'd offered him whatever it was, you know, if they'd offered him another, they don't have the Nobel Prizes in Berlin, but if they'd offered him some kind of other award, the MTV Germany Coolest Performer Award, best spoken word recording at the Berlin Grammys or whatever they call them there for his iPod that he gave the Queen with all of his greatest speeches on.
I'm surprised you can get all of Obama's great speeches onto one iPod.
But I'm surprised if he'd said we're going to give you a best spoken word recording award for that, he'd have been in Berlin in an instant.
But to go there for the fall of the Berlin Wall, he decided he couldn't fit that into his hectic schedule right now.
So he's not going to be there for that.
1-800-282-2882, we'll talk about those.
We'll also talk about the continuing news as it emerges out of Fort Hood and that story.
And bring up some other news as well.
I see we don't know any Uyghur stories, but the Yanomani tribe in Venezuela has been severely affected by swine flu, by the old H1N1.
The Yanomani tribe, there's only 32,000 of them left, but they've been disproportionately affected by the H1N1 and the Venezuelan government.
So in other words, this is Hugo Chavez's responsibility.
But Survival International, this humanitarian group, says the situation is critical.
Apparently, the Venezuelan healthcare service isn't all it's cracked up to be, at least in terms of providing services to the Yanomani tribe.
If you think a Yanomani tribesman has it tough at the moment, wait until Obamacare has been in operation for three or four years.
And you may be wanting to go, if you've got a little bit of elective surgery and it's taken too long to wait for it in, say, Westchester County, you may just want to hop a plane and go and get it taken care of in some Yanomani tribal hospital in the Venezuelan jungle.
Pay problem parents not to breed.
This is a mayor in New Zealand who, Michael Laws, who says that they should pay the so-called, quote, appalling underclass, unquote, not to breed.
Because these children have no hope from the moment they're born.
So there's no point letting them have children.
We should pay them not to have children.
In effect, that's actually what Europe has done.
Europe has given its population so many benefits now.
If you take Germany, for example, in Germany, everybody stays in school until they're about 34, and then they take early retirement at 42.
And they wonder why they can't make the math of that society add up.
We, in effect, pay people, as it is, not to have children by extending education into the early 20s, mid-20s, late 20s, early 30s, and then by coming up with so many benefits that you no longer need to...
You actually break people's survival instinct and procreative instinct.
But apparently, this is quite a controversial guy in New Zealand.
He called the late king of Tonga a bloated brown slug, apparently, which would not be something that would advance his political career.
Apparently, it's no obstacle to a political career in New Zealand, but it would certainly cause him problems here.
I was like the late king of Tonga.
Queen Saloti of Tonga, I think, is my favorite Tongan monarch.
By the way, it's Tonga, not Tonga.
Queen Saloti is my favorite Tongan monarch.
At Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, she was riding in a carriage with a very, she was like a huge woman, and she had this very little small man next to her, who was about four foot four.
And somebody inquired as to who that the small man next to the huge Queen of Tonga was.
And I believe it was Noel Coward who said it was her lunch.
But that's very multiculturally insensitive.
Anyway, that's my tong and monarchy jokes for today.
There's a woman, I think she's going to be on TV here later today, 29-year-old woman who has two vaginas.
So presumably, if we're paying people not to have children, she'll get twice the payment.
Yeah, a double dipper.
Speaking of which, Lauren Williams was told by her doctor that she could get pregnant twice at the same time, but she shouldn't.
So that if she's pregnant in one uterus, she and her partner should use condoms, still use condoms just in case she gets pregnant with the other uterus.
This is Lauren Williams, who has two vaginas, two cervixes, and two uteruses.
So if that doesn't entitle her to two of the welfare checks to be paid not to have children, I don't know what is.
So we may get to some of those peripheral problems, peripheral stories as well.
Anything you want to talk about?
1-800-282-2882.
One thing we should talk about is the unemployment rate.
10.2%.
I mentioned this in the last hour.
This is double-digit unemployment.
This is the highest it's been now for a quarter century.
If you take into account people who've effectively stopped looking or who are making do with part-time jobs or whatever, you can make the case that the real underlying unemployment rate is about 17%.
What is the Democratic Party's solution to this?
As we've seen, it's to tax people more, but don't worry, they're just going to tax, they're just going to tax, Nancy Pelosi says, they're just going to tax millionaires.
And don't worry, there's not a lot of those, so you don't have to worry about that.
They're going to introduce massive new entitlements that will increase the debt and the deficit and the general unaffordability of the federal government even more.
And they are going to do things that will ensure that that 10.2% unemployment rate, if we're lucky, could be a permanent feature of life.
And if we're not lucky, it'll go a lot higher.
Senator John D. Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, John D. Rockefeller IV, Jay Rockefeller.
He said as he left a meeting of Senate leaders yesterday, the question is, do people think we're tending to the things they care about?
And he said that his concern, this is a Democrat senator, his concern is that people are beginning to tell him that the agenda that Democrats are pursuing, healthcare and climate change, have very little impact on people who are focused on finding or keeping jobs.
I don't think people in my state are going to stand up and start cheering about Copenhagen.
This is what he's saying.
By the way, Copenhagen is this big climate change thing that essentially is going to be a big global climate change regime.
Not only are people not going to be cheering about that, but if they've got any sense, they're going to be mad as hell about it because that's going to make unemployment worse.
That's going to make the economy worse.
That's going to make regulation worse.
That is going to decrease the likelihood that you will be able to have a buoyant, vibrant economy ever again.
When Jay Rockefeller, who is the nearest to a mainstream Democrat, starts wondering out loud whether the Democratic agenda represents what people care about, you know that they're beginning, whatever they might say in public, they're beginning to get the message of what happened on Tuesday.
So we're going to talk about the economy straight ahead.
And we also talk about the plans to ram health care down the throats of the American people over this weekend.
All that straight ahead.
And of course, anything you want to talk about.
Uyghurs, women with two uteruses, Uyghurs with two uteruses.
We'll take your calls on any subject you want to talk about.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein, in for rush on the EIB network.
I mentioned in the last hour why did this guy at the Ford Hood shooting, why was he promoted to major in May, despite what everyone knew about him?
And I've had a lot of Army people write to me to say a doctor gets promoted to major if he's board certified in a speciality.
In this case, it would be Major Hassan's speciality of psychiatry.
You start as a captain when you graduate from medical school.
So when he was at Walter Reed, he basically interned at Walter Reed as a captain.
You get that automatically when you come out of medical school.
And when you're board certified in a specialty, in speciality, in this case, psychiatry, then you automatically get promoted to major.
So that's apparently the reason for that.
1-800-282-2882, Open Line Friday.
And that means you can talk about.
You can talk about anything that is on your mind.
Lots of things to talk about today.
The economy, the 10.2% unemployment rate.
The worst thing we could do in a recession is raise taxes.
And this bill does just that.
Those are the words of Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma.
He's a Democrat.
And he's a Democrat looking toward his re-election prospects in 2010.
The question then is, how many of those are there?
We heard earlier there's talk that there's maybe 69 House Democrats who are not on board with Nancy Pelosi's bill.
69, something like that?
Which she has to hold at least 29 of those 69 Democrats.
She can lose 40.
She can lose 40 so-called blue dog Democrats and still get this sucker through.
But if it is 69, then the bill is over.
Nancy Pelosi has said that she doesn't care if she, this is the right thing to do and she doesn't care if she loses her seat over this.
And you may be wondering, by the way, why if government health care is such an obviously benign, caring, progressive thing to do, why the Democrats, including their leader in the House, are openly talking about paying the political price for it?
Because it isn't, in the end, about health care.
It's about control.
It's about control.
And what government health care does for the Democrats is deliver a permanent left-of-center political landscape, which we'll talk about a bit later in the show today.
But it's intimately connected with the 10.2% unemployment rate.
And it's intimately connected with the election results on Tuesday.
The fascinating thing to me was not so much the top of the bill items, losing the governor's races, the Democrats losing the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia.
What was interesting to me was when you dig down into the numbers, the way all these solidly blue suburban wealthy suburbs, Westchester County, the Connecticut Coast, similar counties in New Jersey and Virginia.
This is all the territory that the so-called moderate conservatives, the reform conservatives, the reform Republicans have told us that the GOP has lost.
The GOP, they say, has no appeal except to stump-tooth, knuckle-dragging rednecks with pickup trucks.
That's what it's become.
It's got no appeal to these wealthy suburban voters.
Well, on Tuesday, these wealthy suburban voters signaled that they're not as wealthy as they thought they were.
A year ago, they thought they could afford to vote for Barack Obama.
They thought that the frisson of voting for this benign post-partisan healer came without a price, came without a ticket.
And what they said, if you look at voting patterns on Tuesday, is that they are worried they can no longer afford the benign post-partisan healer.
And they're absolutely right about that.
And that's really why conservatives should be pleased about what's happened on Tuesday, because moderates and independents abandon the Democratic brand in large number.
And for a very simple reason, that this stuff is unaffordable.
You've got to be extremely rich.
You've got to be Hollywood rich to afford the Obama presidency.
Because all kinds of things are going to be more expensive.
All kinds of things are going to be more regulated.
And all kinds of things are just going to be just plain worse.
Like the waiting time, if you need surgery, the waiting time it's going to require to get to it.
And what's fascinating to me is how quickly not really purple precincts, but actually deep blue precincts in Westchester County, Connecticut, suburban Virginia, suburban New Jersey woke up to this and turned to the Republicans in ways that should be very encouraging, I think, for the Republican Party as it goes into 2010.
I don't doubt the capacity of the Republican Party to screw this up in their usual way and inflict a few New York 23 type scenarios on us.
But the kernel of reality is well understood by these people.
You've got to be extremely wealthy to afford the Obama presidency, and most of us are not that wealthy.
And they get it in Westchester County, they get it in Connecticut, they get it in Virginia, they get it in New Jersey.
This 10.2% unemployment rate, why is that?
One reason is that even if the economy has picked up, people are reluctant to start hiring again.
Why are they reluctant to start hiring?
Because they don't know what kind of new costs, employee costs, the Democratic Congress is going to impose on employers.
Is it true that if you decide not to offer health care, if you don't sign up to the government plan, you're going to be taxed face an 8% tax for not providing health care for your employees?
These are all reasons why small employers across the country, even if business is beginning to pick up again, are going to be very wary about hiring anybody new right now.
So we'll talk about the 10.2% unemployment rate and the state of the economy and what Tuesday's election results mean for all that straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882.
And Rush will be back, of course, Monday at noon Eastern.
Mark Stein in for Rush, talking about the shooting at Fort Hood.
We'll also be talking about health care and the new 10.2% unemployment figure.
But it's Open Line Friday.
You get to talk about anything you want to talk about too.
1-800-282-2882.
Let's go to Brian in Indianapolis.
Brian, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
And I must say that if no supporting paperwork gives us Mark Stein, then I say bring out the paper shredders.
Exactly.
I'm in favor of that anyway.
You know, when the president said, President Bush used to talk about how we need to bring the undocumented Americans out of the shadows.
I say no.
I like actually living in the shadows, free from government paperwork.
We should all get that option.
Okay, Brian, so I take it your papered up to the hilt.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's good.
I wanted to talk about the 10.2%.
Before I do, I just wanted to comment on the last subject.
I think that the only thing that is worse than not fighting this horrible Islamic ideology is to ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist.
That is actually, in my opinion, much more dangerous.
And that's what our mainstream media is doing right now.
Yeah, I see there's currently a shooting going on in Florida.
And it will be interesting to see whether this man, it's apparently some guy who just walked into an office building where he used to work and started firing.
It'd be interesting to see whether he gets the same protective insulation in the news coverage that the mainstream media have provided to Major Hassan.
And I think it seems I think he used to work in this building and he decided to go in and shoot it up.
But you also wanted to talk about the economy.
Yes.
I really think that this is a huge indictment against this administration because remember, this was all supposed to be a lot lower by now.
And I heard this morning several different people say that this new number is a stark reminder that more needs to be done.
And I just about lost my breakfast because in my opinion, too much has been done.
Way too much has been done.
No, no, no, no.
Brian, don't you know how many jobs the government has, quote, created or saved area?
Yes, I do, Mark.
Not enough to counter the new 10.2%.
No.
Too much has been done.
No, no, no.
If it weren't for the stimulus funding, the unemployment rate would be 70.3% by now.
Don't you imagine?
You and I wouldn't be talking as the world would have come to a complete halt if we didn't have that.
Nancy Pelosi said earlier this year that 10 million Americans were losing their jobs every she said this, I think this was a week before they passed the stimulus bill.
I remember.
10 million Americans were losing their jobs every month.
That's 500 million Americans losing their jobs every year.
Do you realize?
That's a billion.
That's 2 billion Americans unemployed in Barack Obama's first term alone.
Which means that children that aren't even born have already lost their jobs.
That's right.
Illegal immigrants who haven't yet had a chance to do their sub-minimum wage seasonal fruit picking have already been laid off before they've even left Venezuela.
This would be what is happening.
This would be what is happening if Barack Obama hadn't decided to throw billions and billions of dollars scarifying pavement all over the lower 48.
That has made that saved these numbers from being even far more horrifying than they would have been.
I remember when I was eight years old sitting on my dad's lap and I really remember looking at this actor, now gone president.
And my dad said to me, now you get ready to listen because you're going to hear something that he called a great paradox.
And I remember saying, what is that?
He said, well, it's kind of magical, Brian.
When you lower the requirement that people have to give through taxes, up go the coffers through income, and up go the coffers through people working, and when you lower the penalty that people have for making investments, up go the coffers for America.
When you basically let Americans be Americans, good things happen.
And that template was set in 1983.
And it's why I believe that this administration, as you've said, as I know Russia said many times, is doing this on purpose because if they wanted to lower the unemployment rate, if they wanted to see this economy build, these are the last things they would be doing.
They would be setting their hands to the things that have already been proven.
But I believe they want an entitlement society.
I believe they want a society that lives on handouts, government reliance.
They want unemployment.
They want increased poverty.
I think they want a society divided into three groups.
They are basically the dependent class.
And you've heard that today, where they say, well, well, with these unemployment numbers, we're going to need to increase the amount of money people get so they can stay on unemployment longer.
You increase the dependency class.
You increase the bureaucracy class that services them, that gives them the government handouts.
And you also increase, in terms of the so-called private sector, companies that are nominally private, but essentially depend on their contacts with government.
So, for example, if you've got the contract to print the envelope in which the welfare check is mailed out on, you're essentially part of the government payroll too.
And if you do all that, you leave a very small group of people in the middle who are in genuinely productive, dynamic, entrepreneurial, private industry who are getting squeezed on every side.
And there is at that point, as there is all over the Western world, no point in being in dynamic entrepreneurial private sector business anymore.
People think, you know, when Obama spends money, that it's just he takes a trillion dollars and the government spends it in wasteful ways.
He hasn't conjured that trillion dollars out of thin air.
He's actually taken most of it from us.
So that trillion dollars that people could have been spending in any which way, hiring somebody, developing a new product, or even just going to the general store and gassing up and buying a couple of cases and beer, driving deep into the woods and sitting on a rock and getting yourself plastered because the country's going to hell, even that would have been a more productive use of it than taking a trillion dollars,
giving it to a bureaucrat in Washington who's going to decide what projects around the country are the ones that the government will decide to bless with its largesse.
Brian, this is a very, very dark path where tiptoeing down.
I was sitting down last night enjoying some cigars with friends two nights ago, actually, and the question came up, well, why would they be doing this?
And I said, I really believe that the issues are never the issues with Democrats, with liberals.
It's not about health care and making it better.
It's not about environmental lunacy and making it better.
It is about power and it's about control.
And thank God that there are wins, I really believe, that are moving in this nation, standing up against it.
But mark my words, this is what this is about.
And I'm very proud to be an American in the sense that many great Americans are standing up and saying, whether I voted for it or not, this is not the America I know.
This is not the America I'm going to raise my children in.
And I will stand up and fight.
And we'll see what happens.
But I'm proud to be an American on this day.
Yeah, and actually, that's a very good way of putting it, that it's about control.
The advantage, people say, well, where did these issues come from?
Did they just come out of nowhere?
No, they didn't.
The advantage of healthcare is it gives the government the opportunity to control and regulate every part of your life, every part of your body, every part of your diet.
These are issues now that in countries that have socialized healthcare, the government claims the right to interfere in on the grounds that they have to pay for you to get better if you get an illness, so they have a right to tell you how to lead your life so you won't get ill.
It's the same thing in an even grander scale with the environment.
Because the environment, if you think of pretty much everything that healthcare covers, then the environment covers everything else.
There's an Australian environmentalist talking about this climate change conference in Copenhagen.
He said, We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen.
This is a guy called Tim Flannery.
He's one of these jet-setting, doomsaying global warming mongers who flies all over the world with a huge carbon footprint, but it's okay for him to do it because he's telling all the rest of us how to live.
And he says, We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty.
That is far from the case.
The negotiations going on at Copenhagen are diplomacy at the most profound global level.
They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.
Did you know that environmentalists at Copenhagen were negotiating every aspect of your life?
This is one of those honest environmentalists who happens to have just kind of cheerfully given the game away.
That's what it's about.
And that's the advantage of the environment and healthcare to the Democratic Party.
That if you accept these as core issues and if you sign on to the democratic view of these issues, you are in fact licensing government to control every particular of your life in both the smallest aspects, that's to say, what's going on inside your body, and the biggest aspects, which is to say the environment, because between them, pretty much everything is either inside your body or part of the environment,
and that gives the government the right to control and regulate every aspect of your life.
And Brian is right about that.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Lots more straight ahead.
Open Line Friday, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB Network.
We were talking to Brian in Indianapolis.
Woah, we're on a Brian Roll.
Let's go to Brian in Clemens, North Carolina.
It's all Brian Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Brian, you're on the air.
Well, I'm glad to follow the other Brian.
And let me flatter the host for a moment and tell you how much I enjoy your aerudition and also your cosmopolitan and urbane sense of humor.
Wait a minute, cosmopolitan and urban.
Is that kind of code lang?
What is that?
Like a little bit light on his loafers?
Well, yeah, yeah.
Touch of the old tassel loafers.
Cosmopolitan and urbane.
Yeah, but you've been everywhere.
Yeah.
That's another one of those code expressions.
No, no, no, it's not.
Don't put me there, please.
Okay, no, no metrosexual guest hosts on this show.
Please no.
I can assure you that.
No John Edwards hair gel ever used by a Rush Limbaugh guest host.
Okay, you can rely on that.
Okay, Brian, aside from my tassel loafers, what else did you do?
Well, you know, I want to just continue to expand on the previous conversation.
I'm thinking about it perhaps a little deeper historically.
I'm thinking about an article that George Will wrote before Obama came into office.
And he was comparing our recent president, George Bush, to Hoover, and he was comparing Barack Obama to FDR.
And I would say to a certain extent we had the same type of thing happen again following the Great Society with having Nixon with wage and price controls or freezes and then followed by a big government Jimmy Carter that put us into the huge recession that we had then.
And I think it's really important to not only expose the chimera mythology of Kinsey economics, but just to expose the myth of the New Deal and the Great Society, which I know happens on this show as well, too, but it just can't be said too often.
And I think it's not a surprise that we've ended up where we are right now.
It's not a surprise that we're heading, was it, 40% of people are not paying federal taxes now?
No, no.
And you're right in the sense that it's always Republican accommodations with progressive ideas that pave the way for the next big wave of liberalism.
That is what Hoover did with FDR.
Hoover was nobody's idea of a laissez-faire capitalist.
Likewise, Nixon with various, introducing his various government controls, paving the way for Jimmy Carter and Malaise.
And likewise, I think, as you say, certain aspects of the Bush presidency that were good, like lowering tax rates, but that also had bad consequences, such as taking citizens out of the federal taxpaying pool entirely.
That is simply not good for the integrity of the taxation system.
You're right about that, Brian.
Well, yeah, and expanding the prescription benefits, expanded the education as well, in terms of that, I forget what the name of that law was right now.
And then also the TARP thing.
But I was thinking about how World War II brought us out of the Depression.
No, no, no, no, no.
Give FDR his due.
The rest of the world had a depression.
America had a Great Depression, in part because FDR managed to keep it going until Pearl Harbor, which by then almost every economic basket case on the planet had been out of it for a while.
But he managed through FDR's policies to keep it going all the way until 1941.
Yeah, at the beginning of World War II, there was over 14% unemployment still.
And then thinking of Reagan, how he brought us out, even facing the majorities he had of Democrats in the House and the Senate.
I mean, he started off with the Senate being Republican, but that vanished pretty quickly.
And I love the way he campaigned against Carter, talking about the misery index.
And I'm looking forward to some Republican.
Rush says, how's this hope and change working for you?
But I'd love somebody to come back and riff on the misery index again, knowing that 69% of Americans in this last year have either lost their jobs or had their wages reduced.
Right.
And in fact, but you know, I take what you say about the misery index.
And Rush is anti-hope.
He thinks hope is a concept for losers.
Right.
And I'm kind of sympathetic to that broad line.
But it would be nice for somebody to start a hope index, because actually what the Obama administration and the Democrats are doing are destroying hope.
They're actually destroying the possibility that your kids and grandkids will live the American dream.
They're actually making certain the possibility now, they're making certain the reality of intergenerational poverty, that we're spending now at such a rate that our grandkids will never be able to dig their way out of this.
So the Hope Index, if there was a Hope Index, it would be way down in negative numbers right now.
That is actually what is going on.
All this spending is destroying hope.
It's destroying the possibility of a future.
It's actually the death of the American dream, which is a concept that dates from the early 1930s.
Yeah, well, I've got sons and grandsons, and that irritates me terribly.
You know, I think of Margaret Thatcher, who I think got this just right in a very succinct way.
The problem with socialism is what do you do when you run out of being able to spend other people's money?
So that's very true.
That's a great light for Mrs. Thatcher.
Brian, thank you for your call.
We've got to run lots more straight ahead.
Open Line Friday on the EIB network.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
Rush will be back Monday.
Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae, Barney Frank's favorite government agency, has just asked for another $15 billion from the government because they lost $19 billion, another $19 between July and September.
And they're always going to go on losing money because they are a significant government distortion of the property market.
The home ownership is something that all Conservatives should support because it is generally in the interests of a responsible, self-reliant citizenry to have high levels of home ownership.
But it's got to be real home ownership.
And when you gerrymander and rig the market and you lower your lending criteria so that borrowers who actually shouldn't be getting mixed up with these homes are eventually you demolish the entire property market.
You undermine its moral value in society.
They've done this to the property market.
They've done this to the automobile industry.
They're going to do it with environmental regulations.
This is a full-scale assault on the integrity of market capitalism.
And at some point, this is going to have catastrophic consequences.
▲
Export Selection