All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
April 12, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, okay, okay.
People keep saying, why don't you people trust me?
I've said don't doubt me.
How do you know the recession didn't start in 2007?
Russia keep saying it really started in 2007.
Here it is.
I got the chart.
You know, the National Bureau of Economic Research says that we were in a recession in December 2007.
Well, in December 2007, the unemployment rate was 5%.
It wasn't until 2008 that the plunge in unemployment began, and that was in the third quarter.
In fact, in the second quarter of 2008, employment was up.
Employment does not go up in a recession, my friends.
And we, that's right, Bush's recession was better than Obama's recovery is the way to look at this.
Here, let me, I'm just going to show, well, you can't, I'm not going to get close enough for you to be able to read the numbers, but you just have to trust me on this.
In the fourth quarter of 2007, in December, unemployment, 5%.
That's statistically full employment.
Now, that was up from 4.7%.
They want to tell us that a 0.3% increase in unemployment is when the recession began.
And yet in the second quarter of 2008, employment was up, and it was probably around 3%.
Well, the unemployment was a little bit more than 5%, but still it was a little less than 5%.
It was not down whatsoever.
The real plunge began with the second half of 2008 and into the fourth quarter.
And I'll tell you, if you really want to look at when the real plunge of unemployment began, is right after Obama was elected.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, that's when everybody started firing people because they thought they knew what was coming in terms of government economic policy.
They were right.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
From the, let's see, Seattle Times website.
This is actually the Washington Post and I think the Chicago Tribune.
Despite recent job gains, one grim statistic casts a long shadow over the recovery and the economy and the futures of more than 6 million workers.
Fully, 44% of the nation's 15 million unemployed have been out of work more than six months.
Evidence suggests many of them may never rebuild their working lives completely.
Never since the Great Depression has the U.S. labor market seen anything like it.
And don't forget now, reminding you again, long after the New Deal, nine or 10 years after the New Deal had been implemented, unemployment was still at 15 to 20 percent after the New Deal.
It was tax cuts and World War II that started an economic recovery.
It was not the New Deal, and this is the New Deal for New Deal, Raw Deal, whatever.
And it's just as bad as FDR's New Deal was in spurring economic growth.
It's probably just as good as FDR's was in creating loyalty to the Democrat Party among some of the underclass.
Never since the Great Depression has the U.S. labor market seen anything like it.
The previous high in long-term unemployment was 26% June of 83, just after the deep downturn of the early 80s.
How do we come out of that?
Came out of that with Reagan's tax cuts.
The 44% rate this year translates into more than six and a half people.
That's 44% of the nation's 15 million unemployed have been out of work for more than six months.
In fact, nearly two-thirds of these workers actually have been jobless for a year or longer, according to the Labor Department.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday, I'm particularly concerned about that statistic because long spells of unemployment erode skills and lower the longer-term income and employment prospects of these workers.
Fine and dandy as far as Obama is concerned.
This is how you go about creating a permanent underclass, permanently dependent on the federal government.
The hardships of workers are straining the nation's finances, too.
In normal times, jobless workers can qualify for up to 26 weeks of state unemployment benefits.
But the crisis of the past two years has prompted the federal government to help fund jobless benefits for up to 99 weeks in high unemployment states, including the state of Washington.
Federal spending on unemployment benefits could reach $168 billion this year, five times the level in the years just before the recession, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Tens of billions of more dollars are being spent for food assistance to unemployed workers and their families.
Why?
Because you have to make being out of work comfortable.
If you're going to create a permanent underclass and if you're going to disincentivize people, in other words, get them to quit looking for work, you have to make them somewhat comfortable.
And this is one of the reasons that we are going into debt.
At the same time, government revenues have fallen as Social Security, payroll, and other tax receipts have shriveled with fewer jobs and lower earnings.
We have here the perfect storm.
And that's contributed to massive fiscal problems in many states.
California already owes the federal government about $7 billion for unemployment benefit loans and is getting deeper in the hole by the week.
And dare I remind you that they have $550 billion of unfunded pension liabilities in California.
I still don't know how that happened.
Do you realize nothing in California has been real for I don't know how long?
None of it was real.
None of the expansion, none of the growth, none of any of this was real.
Not with this kind of indebtedness.
David Card, economics professor at Berkeley, yeah, you know, it's really killing the deficit here.
The rise in long-term unemployment, coupled with economist projections of a slow recovery, means the tolled individual and government budgets is likely to persist for some time.
Labor Department figures suggest there are five and a half unemployed workers today for every job opening, compared with two job seekers for every opening in 2007.
You tell me how the recession could have begun then in 2007.
As I brilliantly stated, Bush's recession was a better thing than Obama's recovery.
As in previous downturns, a large share of long-term unemployed are in manufacturing and construction.
But I thought we were going to fix that with the stimulus bill.
Shovel-ready jobs.
Most workers who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more are in sales, office, and other service industry jobs, including more than 1 million in management and professional occupations.
Nevertheless, from the Washington Post today, the Congress is poised for another partisan showdown over extending unemployment insurance as concerns about the growing budget deficit have complicated the path forward for an otherwise popular program.
Democrats are going to need at least one Republican supporter to get the 60 votes necessary to proceed on another unemployment extension bill.
The Senate failed to agree on the bill in late March, and they skedaddled out of town because Republicans rejected an attempt to expedite the measure's passage.
Because of the impasse, beginning April 5th, more than 200,000 unemployed people who had already exhausted their state's jobless benefits could not apply for additional benefits from the federal program.
Does that mean they fall off the jobless count?
Yes, it does.
According to estimates by the National Employment Law Project, all these numbers come from.
Democrats point out that they easily moved an extension through the House.
They were primed to do the same in the Senate before Tom Coburn stood in the way.
Last time it was Jim Bunning.
This time it's Coburn.
And again, Republicans are saying that they're not opposed to extending benefits, but they want to offset this $9 billion cost with spending cuts elsewhere.
So it was $10 billion for the last extension, $9 billion for this one.
The last one was underfunded, or was not paid for.
Paygall was abandoned.
Bunning eventually caved because they got to him.
But many Republicans were privately critical of Bunning.
Now they are largely united in their stand, and the vast majority are expected to vote today against moving forward on the extensions.
And I'll give you two reasons why.
Tea Party.
Tea Party.
You see, this is the central issue of the Tea Party: spending, indebtedness, no end in sight to it, and the damage it is doing to the country today, tomorrow, and well into the future.
And now a companion story.
This is from the government-run Associated Press.
Obama's election year jobs agenda stalls in Congress.
The election year jobs agenda promised by Obama has stalled seven months before voters determined control of Congress.
The Democrats have no money to pay for the program.
So we got no money to extend unemployment compensation.
We got no money for another stimulus bill.
That's what this is.
This is the third one, folks, but they're not calling it stimulus anymore.
They are calling it a jobs bill.
And the reason they don't have the money is because both Republicans and the Democrat chairman of the Senate Budget Committee objected to taking money left over from the fund that bailed out the banks, TARP money.
There's all kinds of TARP money left over.
You remember that crisis?
We didn't bail out these banks and whoever it was.
Why, the financial crisis of the world was going to collapse, and that would be the end of the world as we've known it.
And yet, there's still $200 to $300 billion of the original $700 billion unspent.
Obama wants to go get some of that money for the jobs program, but the law says you can't do it.
And even the Democrat chairman of the Senate Budget Committee objects to taking money left over from the fund, from TARP.
Such a move, they insisted, would add tens of billions of dollars to the $12.8 trillion national debt.
An $80 billion Senate plan promised an infusion of cash to build roads and schools, help local governments keep teachers on the payroll, provide rebates for homeowners who make what?
$80 billion is going to work all that magic?
After $1 trillion hasn't, another $400 billion hasn't, after $2 trillion in loans from the Fed to whoever.
All of this Keynesian spending has not worked.
My friend Professor Hazlett points it out in a column back on March 26th.
The theory of Keynesian economics is you spend and spend and spend from Washington.
You create massive deficits.
And this somehow is supposed to inspire the private sector to start creating jobs because they're supposed to be comforted by the fact the federal government's spending money.
Well, it's working just the opposite, as it always does.
Everybody's alarmed the federal government's spending money.
Everybody's alarmed the private sector is shrinking as the federal government spends more money and gets bigger.
So it's chilling economic growth.
It's chilling investment in the private sector, not in the stock market, which is another thing altogether, but it is chilling growth in the private sector.
Two months after the plan was introduced, this $80 billion jobs bill, most of the main elements remain on the Senate shelf.
It hasn't been spent.
Obama also proposed a $250 bonus payment to Social Security recipients because there was no cost of living increase.
But that's dead for the year, too, having lost a Senate vote last month.
Yet Obama's still out telling seasoned citizens that they're going to get the $250 billion, but the whole thing was killed.
The Senate doesn't have the votes, not since Scott Brown.
They can't get anything done there.
And now the election's coming up, and the Democrats are scared to death.
And now, just to go back from the Politico, January 2nd of 2009, a little over a year ago, President Barack Obama acknowledged Monday the fate of his reelection four years from now likely rests on the success of the proposed $825 billion stimulus package.
He said this in an interview on the Today Show.
Google has scrubbed the video clip.
We can't find it.
We might have it in our archives.
A year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there.
If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition, my presidency.
Well, it's going so badly, as we all know, that they're not even calling it stimulus anymore.
And they're making a mistake calling it jobs bills because there aren't any new jobs being created as a result of it.
Anyway, brief timeout.
We'll get some of your phone calls right after this.
Don't go away.
From the Associated Press today, recovery likely to remain sluggish into next year.
Unemployment will stay high and housing prices flat.
The pillars of Americans' financial security, jobs, and home values will stay shaky well into 2011, according to an AP survey of leading economists, which means they're going to make us all as miserable as they can right up to the election, and then they'll try to pull something out of their hats in 2012.
All right, to the phones we go.
Richard and San Diego, you're first up today on the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
You know, you went to that meeting and those kind of meetings that you went to in D.C., I've been to a few things around here, and man, those are just so inspiring because it's always about the country and the dreams that we have.
And Washington has separated itself so much from us, they can't even make a patriotic decision anymore.
It's all about the next election, the next TV appearance.
It's absolutely out of control.
And quite frankly, it's disappointing.
But I'm going to work hard and keep believing.
And come November, I'm going to do everything I can to start turning it around.
And I just wanted to get that out there.
Well, I agree.
That's great.
I think, again, this is what all the organized opposition to Obama is really all about.
People do not want to give up their country.
They don't want to see it changed, transformed, or any of that.
And you're right.
I'll say again, this is the Horatio Alger Association annual induction ceremony that I attended on Friday.
Tommy Franks was inducted on Friday night.
Condoleezza Rice was inducted.
Again, these are people that rose from nothing to become who they are.
And they, to a man and woman, credited the United States of America for making it all possible.
They didn't talk about themselves other than their hard work, but they attributed all of the opportunity they had to where they were born or where they grew up, United States.
And it really was in that room with 1,200 people at Constitution Hall at 18th and D Northwest.
It was striking how I don't hear anybody, I haven't really heard anybody since Reagan speak of the country the way I heard it spoken of that night.
George W. Bush got in there a number of times, and he was, of course, bullyish on the country.
But I never heard Clinton talk that way.
I haven't heard, needless to say, Obama speak that way at all because Obama looks at this country as a crime.
He looks at the country as a problem in the world.
He looks at the country as something that needs to be cut down to size.
Here's Lila in Wichita.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
I was calling in reference also to the event you attended in Washington, D.C.
It really brought home for me what you were feeling over the weekend.
I was watching on the History Channel the Lost War of 1812.
And just the spirit of the American troops and the odds they were up against to win that war just brought chills to me and such pride in my country that I just, you know, I just, oh, it just almost brought tears to my eyes.
And it is the real story of this country from the days of our founding forward up until now.
This is the first time that we are led by somebody who wants to preside over America's decline.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And I was hoping, Rush, that maybe sometime in the near future that maybe Lila could be one of your all-time favorite names.
Well, since you've requested it, it's true.
Oh, yay.
I've known some Lila's in my life.
I've known some Twilas as well.
Well, I've been called that as a joke.
Twila, you know, they'll jug and call me that.
But yes, I have a twin, Lila.
So it could be Twila and Twyla.
How about that?
Well, I'm glad that you called.
I really am.
And Lila.
Lila is officially now one of my all-time top 10 favorite female names.
So the story of America really is overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds as a nation, as individuals.
That has been the definition of our strength and greatness.
And it fascinates me, as I've said on numerous occasions, as human beings, we're no different than any other human beings in the world.
What makes us different is how we have organized ourselves and how we have proclaimed our existence and our founding documents, how we have understood where it is our rights come from and what is the yearning of the human spirit.
And this country embodies all of that in our founding declaration and in the Constitution.
And I'll tell you, folks, it's very sobering.
It was uplifting and sobering at the same time for me, Friday night at the Horatio Alger Association, because you realize Over 200 and some odd years,
we actually are being led by a group of people who are very content and maybe eager to preside over for the first time in our history this nation's decline because they think it deserves to decline and they want to manage it the best they can for their own benefit.
It really is stark.
Standby Audio Sunday 28, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
Look at it this way.
Look at it.
Tax cuts versus unemployment.
Tax cuts versus unemployment.
JFK.
JFK was bullish on America.
We have to admit this.
And JFK preceded Reagan in tax cuts.
Speech New York Economic Club.
We've played the soundbites on this program.
And those tax cuts, by the way, helped us withstand the early years of LBJ's great society and the war on poverty.
But now look where we are.
We've got unemployment and it is rising.
And who does Obama subsidize?
He subsidized those not working.
He is rewarding those who are not working.
He doesn't reward those who are making the mortgage payment, who are trying to pay their taxes, who are doing everything by the rules.
They are the enemy.
Why did Obama do the latter with the stimulus and everything else since?
Why subsidize those who are not working just to keep them comfortable enough so that they stay unemployed?
Just look at it that way.
Why would anybody prefer to subsidize those not working rather than those who are working?
Well, you might say, well, Russ, it's compassion.
I mean, the people working, I mean, at least they have jobs.
The other people don't.
Yeah, but Obama's not doing anything to create jobs.
Quite the contrary.
He's in the process of creating and building a permanent underclass.
I mean, if you're going to subsidize something, you know you get more of it.
Very simple.
If you tax something more, you're going to get less of it.
If you tax something less, you're going to get more of it.
This is not even economics.
This is just plain common sense.
Here's that Obama soundbite.
With all that, and I just keep this in mind.
This is back February 2, 2009, on the Today Show.
Meredith Vieira and Matt Wauer interviewed Obama.
Matt Wauer, some point will you say, wait a minute, we've spent this amount of money.
We're not seeing the results.
We've got to change course dramatically.
It's over a year ago, remember?
Look, I'm at the start of my administration.
One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable.
I've got four years.
You're going to know quickly how people feel about what's happening.
That's exactly right.
And a year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there.
If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition.
A year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress.
Now, I have just peppered you with close to 45 minutes of the day's news on the economy and unemployment, and none of it good, right?
Now we turn to a column in the New York Post today by Larry Kudlow, CNBC.
Don't sell America's recovery short.
Sometimes you have to take off your political lenses and look at the actual statistics to get a true picture of the U.S. economy's health.
Right now, those statistics are saying a modest cyclical rebound after a deep downturn could be turning into a full-fledged V-shaped recovery boom by the end of the year.
I'm aiming this thought especially at many conservative friends who seem to be trashing the improving economic outlook, largely, it would appear, to discredit the Obama regime.
Don't do it, folks.
It's a mistake.
The numbers are the numbers, and prosperity is a welcome development for a nation that has suffered mightily.
Credibility is at issue here.
Now, I've written much about the tax and regulatory threats of the Obamaomics big government assault, but most of that's in the future.
Yes, Larry, this is why they're worried about double dip.
Anyway, the current reality is that a strong rebound in corporate profits, the greatest and truest stimulus of all, he writes, ultra-easy money from the Fed, and some small stimuli from government spending are working to generate a stronger than expected recovery.
It's Larry Cuddlow at CNBC, a noted conservative.
Free market conservatives should tell it like it is.
Let's begin with the March employment numbers recently released.
Those numbers were solid.
People say small businesses are getting killed by taxes and regulations from Washington, but the reality is that the Small Business Household Employment Survey has produced 1.1 million jobs in the first quarter of 2010, or 371,000 a month.
If that continues, the unemployment rate will drop a lot.
The corporate payroll number for March also rose by 224,000, not 162,000, as some people claim, with the prior two months being revised up by 62,000.
This is being led by private sector job creation.
Just released data put retail chain store sales for the year ending in March up a blowout 10%, 10%.
That's a V-shaped recovery.
The real-time purchasing manager's report for manufacturing and services indicates that the economy in the next few quarters could be much stronger than the consensus expects, maybe 5% to 6%.
Another V-shaped recovery.
Commodity charts, meanwhile, are roaring.
All manner of raw industrial materials have been booming, iron, ore, steel, you name it.
More V-shaped recovery.
So with higher commodity prices running almost across the board, there's every incentive for rapid inventory rebuilding.
At this point, it's impossible to project a long-lived, long-lived economic boom, such as we had following the early 80s deep recession.
For one thing, tax rates will rise in 2011 for successful earners and investors, quite unlike the Reagan cuts of the 80s.
So it's possible that entrepreneurs and investors are bringing income activity and investment forward into 2010 in order to beat the tax man in 2011.
This would artificially boost this year's economy, stealing from next year's economy.
So we could have a little bit of a dip.
Although the Obama cons deny it, tax rate incentives matter a lot.
At some point, monetary policy will tighten higher interest rates on top of higher tax rates.
That, too, could slow growth markedly next year.
And then there's the dozen tax hikes in the Obamacare bill and a possible value-added tax from Paul Volcker, all of which will work against growth in the out years.
So clearly, we aren't operating a supply-side-free market model today.
What I wish for is sound money and lower tax rates, which would promote sustainable economic growth.
Instead, we're getting easier money and higher tax rates, which could mean a temporary boom today and disapprovingly slow growth after that.
But then again, who knows?
Maybe the Tea Party revolution overturns the obstacles to future growth, and the boom is sustained.
Free market populism and return to Reaganism, along with an anti-federal spending coalition, that's the most powerful force in politics today, could right the economic ship.
That is a credible take.
This is Larry Kudlow.
So to translate and summarize, hey, we've got a V-shaped economic recovery happening right now, from inventory replacement to commodity prices to Wall Street going up to corporate and small business employment.
We've got a V-shaped recovery going on.
And all of the pain will start next year and years later when all of Obama's new taxes and Obamacare gradually kick in.
Now, everybody knows that.
Everybody knows that the out-years, and Kudlow has just made the case himself, that the out-years pose great challenges.
But here again, here's somebody who's optimistic.
He's optimistic about the effect of the Tea Party.
He wants to be optimistic about what's happening now.
And what he writes is in stark contrast to what we're hearing everywhere and anywhere else, including real-life anecdotal stories from our neighbors and friends and the state-controlled media.
So his column stands out.
So I ran through all of this continuing horribly bad economic news.
And then there's Kudlow today in the New York Post, a little bit of an island.
This is also tax week.
This is the week you pay the IRS and your state government what you owe.
You ever notice when you put the word the and IRS together, it spells theirs.
T-H-E-I-R-S.
The IRS, theirs.
But I digress, my friends.
There's nothing in our future today that even suggests you'll pay less next year or the year after, as Kudlow has just documented.
We are going to have to put forth new, irrefutable research showing why and how we must cut taxes.
I think most Americans, majority of them, understand this.
They understand what we're up against.
However, for those who don't, the researchers at the Heritage Foundation have already started such a project.
This Thursday, they're conducting their own tax day money bomb, taking a page from Scott Brown's one-day fundraising effort to win a Senate seat.
Now, what Heritage is trying to do here is raise $150,000.
That's all meant to support their research on government spending that can be cut and taxes that can be saved.
So this Thursday, don't look at it as just a day you must help Obama pay for the trillions of dollars of new spending that we don't have.
Look at it as a day you're helping countless researchers mount new arguments with real research to make the case for lower taxes in your future.
And they don't lobby just the American people.
They lobby at the Heritage Foundation elected officials.
They even try to get hold of Democrats.
Heritage Foundation's tax day money bomb is Thursday.
All of the details of this are at askheritage.org.
Go check them out.
Well, the death toll is now up to five in this Afghan passenger bus accident Fired upon by Western troops, 18 injured, four killed instantly, five total deaths.
Anti-U.S. protests follow the shootings took place in Kandahar.
And, of course, the drive-bys are reporting this, and they're analyzing it from the standpoint, will this make Kaizai even angrier at Obama?
And you know, I think back, if something like this had happened, an accident.
Where American troops in Iraq may have killed four Iraqi citizens or five and injured 18, all that would be on the news is how the U.S. military is a bunch of murderous thugs in an unjust war led by George W. Bush.
But no matter who is president, that kind of smear against the U.S. military will not take place on this program.
I remember when every civilian death that happened in Iraq, boy, it was Bush and Kerry, well, Kerry and John Merthyr, who knows who else, the Democrat side, Dingy Harry, this war is lost.
And they were impugning the motives and the character of the U.S. military.
And isn't it interesting it's not happening now under Obama?
And I'm glad it's not.
Don't misunderstand.
But just know that if this were happening with Bush or any other Republican in office, the whole taint on this story would be much different than it is as we speak.
Laura in Hicksville, New York, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Russ.
First things first, I have to tell you I love you, and my husband knows, and it's okay.
I am a wife and a mother and a grandmother.
And the other day at a dinner I went to over the weekend, I got to confront Chuck Hugh Schumer.
Where did this happen?
This happened on Long Island.
I was at a dinner for a fire service, and Chuck Hugh Schumer weaseled an invitation to get there to come and speak.
And I was there.
And when he left, I raced out of the room to say something to him.
And I did.
Should I tell you what happened?
Yeah, I'd like to hear it.
What happened was, first I asked him for his autograph so that I would be pretty nice.
I said, can I ask you a question?
Oh, so you used the old soften them up trick, making them think that you're a big supporter and fan.
Exactly.
Very smart.
A little stealth action, Russ.
You know how it goes.
Well, did Chuck Hugh sign the autograph or was like a lot of athletes and blew you off?
No, he, you know, he signed it.
He asked me what my name was, and I told him my name is Laura.
And he signed my program.
And then I said to him, he had spoken about teamwork because he was talking to the fire service.
So it was like all this teamwork stuff, teamwork.
And I asked him how it felt to be on a team that caused my husband, my children, and my grandchildren to be indebted to such an extent that we'll never see our way out of it.
And what did Chuck Hugh Schumer retort?
He said he didn't know what I meant.
And if I was thinking a little quicker on my feet, Russ, I would have said, therein lies the problem, Senator.
But I looked at him like he had three heads and I said, what do you mean you don't know what I mean?
I said that your team has incurred such debt on the backs of my grandchildren.
I have four grandchildren.
And he said to me, well, I have children too.
So then I said to him, and then he looked at me and you know what he said to me?
You ready?
Yeah.
We're going to bring down the debt.
Yeah, when are they going to start doing that?
Yeah, I said to him, oh, really?
After passing health care with cap and trade in the wings, you're going to bring down the debt?
So he said to me, cap and trade hasn't passed.
Well, okay.
So I said to him, do I have your word you won't vote for it?
So he said, well, not if it raises the debt.
I said, do I have your word?
You will not vote for it.
Needless to say, you know as well, he did not answer my question.
And I said to him, your team has done this to my babies because they'll never get out from underneath this.
And he said to me, arrogantly, I'm very proud of my team.
Well, of course he would say that.
Well, I couldn't believe it, Rush.
I was like, I couldn't believe it.
And he said.
Well, what did you expect him to say out there, Laura?
Did you expect, you know, you're right.
We really are screwing things up here.
Or did you expect to say, you're exactly right.
And we intend for your grandchildren to be in debt because we're trying to create a permanent underclass totally dependent on me and my party for whatever they get.
What were you expecting him to say?
You're right.
But you know what, Rush, I'm really angry because they're arrogant and they're doing this.
And you know what?
The bottom line is I walked away.
He said to me, well, I'm proud of my team.
I said, well, I'm not.
I'm not proud of your team.
And with that, his hand list, you know, called him away.
But the bottom line is I walked away and I thought to myself, he could care less what I have to say.
That's exactly right.
He could care less what me or anyone else has to say.
They're going to do what they want to do.
And it doesn't matter what we have to say about anything.
I'm surprised they didn't call security have you dragged away.
You behaved in an insolent fashion to a member of American royalty.
Well, it's funny you said that when he said that, what's your name?
I was almost tempted to say your Royal Highness, but I didn't.
I was good.
But the bottom line is I did say what I had to say, and I needed to say it for me, not because I thought that it was going to change.
That's exactly right.
And that is the point.
And that's all you can do.
That's all you can do until November when you get to the ballot box.
We're proud of you here, Laura.
I mean, especially for the old soften-em-up technique.
Hey, Senator Schumer, can I have your autograph, please?
Get him thinking he's idolized by you.
Then you'll launch into the indebtedness stuff.
But you're right.
They don't care.
If they cared, Laura, they wouldn't be doing any of this.
From the CBS-TV, Eyeball News affiliate in Miami.
A woman battling breast cancer.
Well, a cancer battle was dealt a surprise blow by the Obama regime.
She has had her Medicaid dropped.
The Obama regime has canceled Medicaid for a mother with cancer who is already bald because of her radiation treatments.
▲
Export Selection