All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 2, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
August 2, 2010, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Greetings to you, music lovers, drill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh, great to be back.
Hope you had a great weekend.
The economy is so bad that President Obama is out there in Atlanta talking about.
Well, he's trying to get people to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's how bad things are in the economy.
Mahmood Ahmadizad has uh offered to debate Obama about whatever about what we don't look disgusting.
Happy anniversary, dear Ross.
Happy anniversary, dear Ross.
Happy anniversary to you.
Twenty-two years.
The EIB network, 22 years old today, and the staff in violation of every instruction here brings in a cake.
Uh celebrating the 22nd editor blowout.
There you go.
Thank you all very much.
You may now cut the cake and enjoy it amongst yourselves.
Mahmood.
New York staff says, come up here, we won't do anything.
Yeah, leave me alone on my birthday too.
Anyway, Ahmedini Zad says he wants to debate Obama.
Don't know about what we assume.
It's the uh uh uh Iran's uh rush to uh nuke up.
Charlie Wrangle is telling everybody not to rush to justice, uh, even though the investigation has gone on for two years.
And Sarah Palin.
Now, seriously, oh no, Obama is out there trying to get he's in Atlanta, disabled American veterans.
And he's getting he's trying to get uh everybody to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now let me tell you something.
His buds on the left, we were talking the other day about why the left so unhappy, why they're so miserable and so angry.
I mean, this is and we've we've dissected this in every which way you can imagine, but this is not gonna make them happy.
These people want out of every war we're in.
They thought Obama was gonna get us out, uh, and we were going to snatch victory or defeat from the jaws of victory.
Not only were we gonna get out, we were gonna lose.
We were going to be humiliated in Iraq.
Humiliated in Afghanistan.
That's what Obama's supporters want.
And now he's out there touting his successes.
This is not what Obama's base wants to hear.
Stories throughout the media today.
Obama's not going to be campaigning for Democrats.
He admits he'll be a hurt and a drag.
Other Democrats don't want him anywhere near their reelection efforts.
It's uh it's an amazing way, the kick off a week, and Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin says that the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, has something that Obama lacks.
Cajones.
You have to love this, because she's one of the few Republicans in Washington that has cojones herself and accusing the president of the United States of not having any.
Here's the audio sound bite.
It was Fox News Sunday yesterday.
Chris Wallace said a federal judge has now blocked the key provisions of the Arizona immigration law.
What's your response?
Jan Brewer, bless her heart.
She's gonna do all that she can to continue down the litigation paths to allow secure borders.
Because she's Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of immigration laws.
If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to help support Jan Brewer and state laws, state efforts to do what our president won't do.
You know, this is big.
I I think this is uh a little bit more noteworthy than a lot of people are saying, especially inside the White House.
Uh and I don't know, Obama may not know how insulted he's been here because he doesn't want to speak Spanish.
There gotta be somebody in there who speaks Spanish for him to know what she has just said.
But I mean, here you have somebody ranking in the Republican Party saying that and it's a female saying that the president of the United States does not have cojones.
Now, uh it it it sounds like, uh, ladies and gentlemen, if she if if she's if she's correct, who does our president blame?
If she is right that Obama has no cojones, who was it that suggested at one point removing them?
Uh, that would be the uh Reverend O'Jax.
Uh Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, U.S. civil rights leader, the uh Reverend O'Jax uh complained on Tuesday that Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama can seem to be talking down to black people at times and should broaden his message.
The uh Reverend O'Dacks talking to CNN on Wednesday said Obama has given what amounts to lectures at African American churches.
I said it can come off as speaking down to black people.
The moral message must be a broader message.
In an aside to another guest after a Fox News channel interview on Sunday, Jackson said Obama had been talking down to black people, added, I want to cut his nuts out.
Now that was caught on tape, and uh it was not part of the interview program, the microphone was still on.
So Sarah Palin says, uh the president of the United States has no cojones.
And the Reverend Jackson has expressed a desire in the past to make that a reality.
He said on CNN, I was in a conversation with a fellow guest uh at Fox on Sunday.
He asked about uh Barack's speeches lately to black churches.
I said it can come off as speaking down to black people, and then I said something I I felt regret for.
It was crude, it was very private, very very much a sound by the live mic.
I uh I find no comfort in it, I find no joy.
We saw it.
You know, if you've seen the video, the Reverend Dax uh seemed very happy when he made the statement.
And back in May of 2008, none other than James Carville, the uh the Clintons, ubiquitous former aide, booster and informal advisor, made the point even more vividly, giving Clinton a two-go-nad edge in her primary rival.
James Carville said that Hillary's got more gonads than Obama.
Now, Hillary took it as a compliment, by the way.
What Carville said was if she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two.
Carpell said.
So, folks, can you remember at a time ever in your life where whether or not the president has any cojones has been discussed, and people on both sides of the aisle have suggested no, and that women, the governor of Arizona and Hillary Clinton, have more gonads, cojones than Barack Hussein Obama.
Mmm, mmm, mmm.
And that's not all.
May 6th of 2008, Evan Bai, halfway through telling a story about a steel worker in northern Indiana on stage, uh, beside his Senate colleague Hillary Clinton.
Anybody know what he said?
Bay asked at the Saturday rally, starting to quote the steel worker.
Our candidate is the one in the race, and Hillary cut him off with a whisper, urgent gesture, don't say it, don't repeat it, don't repeat it.
Evan Bai said, She doesn't want me to go there.
Okay, okay, I won't.
All right, all right.
Now Clinton may not like the story.
It's a political, by the way, reporting this.
May 6, 2008.
Clinton may not like the story, but her supporters love it.
The sheet metal workers' union official in Portage, Indiana, cited by Evan Bai, had praised her testicular fortitude before lighting into unnamed Gucci wearing, latte drinking opponents such as Barack Obama.
So, Evan Bai.
James Carville have questioned a cojones of the president while he was a candidate, claiming it Hillary had more.
Here comes Sarah Palin, Fox News yesterday.
You might say, piling on.
This is people are laughing at the president over the United States or whether or not he's a man.
They are laughing at his toughness.
They are laughing at his manhood.
If we are, and now we've got Mahmoud Ahmed inizad, who wants to debate Obama, not have negotiations, Not have talks, but he wants to debate.
Meanwhile, the Castros have decided socialism may not be the answer, that communism may not be the answer.
They're gonna fire a bunch of government workers that you're on your own, people.
Go out and get your own jobs.
Same thing the Western Socialist Democracies are doing, cutting back on all their socialism.
When Obama's out there to the DAV today, disabled American vets, and he's promising even more spending.
Money that we don't have.
Obama made his first Atlanta appearance since his inauguration.
This is uh Channel 11 Eyeball News in Atlanta.
Headline of the story, Democrats scatter Monday as Obama comes to town.
If you think this will be a time for Democrats running for orifice to rally around the chief executive, you probably haven't been following the campaigns this summer.
Former Governor Roy Barnes will not be available to meet Obama.
The Democrat gubernatorial candidate will be somewhere in Georgia, far from Atlanta.
Governor Sonny Purdue will greet the president plain side when the Democrat arrives in Georgia.
Mr. Purdue's spokesperson, Bert Brantley told 11 Eyeball News reporter Jeff Hullinger that the governor had to juggle his schedule to be able to greet the president.
I wish, you know, I really wish we could all get away from this president as easily as the Democrats apparently can.
Sarah Palin was not finished on Fox News Sunday.
She said it was idiotic to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
An interesting piece today, Newsweek magazine, Farid Zakaria has a uh a piece, and and EJ D, no, not EJD.
Well, it might have been last week, but uh, you know, the the subject of whether the Bush tax cuts should sunset, should expire in December or be extended for everybody is now uh the topic de jour.
And it's it's fascinating to read both sides of this.
I mean, there's no, there is literally no argument, no debate, if you're being intellectually honest, that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, and they stimulate period.
And there's no argument that tax increases, particularly in uh economic circumstances like this, uh, deplete resources in the private sector, and thus private sector activity is slowed down.
And it's not just a static thing.
It's not just if you take money away from people that they have less to spend.
If you take money away from the rich and they have less to there's less money to hire, economic activity gets depressed.
It reduces.
Tax cuts stimulate economic growth.
Now, the the left cannot afford for that to be uh accepted as a norm throughout, and so now the argument has come up, and they're piling on with as many people as they can to suggest that the Bush tax cuts are the reason why we're in the problem that we're in.
And it's nothing could be further from the truth.
And we've told you over the course of the program here the last since 2000, uh, we've had the stories time and time again, how Washington was shocked to see all of the additional revenue they hadn't counted on flowing into the treasury simply because of a capital gains tax rate reduction down to 15%.
So there's no we we we have a spending problem.
There's no qua how can you how can you suggest that we have anything other than a spending problem, and how can you suggest that economic growth is not the way out of it?
You can't tax increase your way out of an economic slump.
It's simply not possible.
Tax increases deplete the private sector, they reduce private sector activity, and they expand the size of government.
Now, anybody being intellectually honest would know this.
So there's an all-out effort now on the part of the left for read Zakaria as the latest in Newsweek magazine to suggest that the Bush tax cuts are the reason.
We are in the economic morass that we're in.
As you people know, because you listen regularly to the program, the Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with it.
In fact, the Bush tax cuts, as Obama loves to say, if we hadn't done the stimulus would be even worse.
If those Bush tax cuts had not been in place since 2001 and 2003, we would be in even worse shape than we are in now.
But intellectual honesty is in short supply.
Intellectual honesty on the left is replaced by agendas and wishes, hopes, dreams all of a panacea and of a utopia.
And I'm struck as I pay attention to this by all the people who think when I say all the people, I'm talking about Democrats, some Republicans and the ruling class who actually think that Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts.
Where is the evidence to suggest that Obama will do anything to grow the economy?
Where is the evidence that Obama will do anything to improve the economic circumstances of average American citizens?
Where's the evidence of it?
Well, Rush, everybody knows you can't raise taxes like this.
Obama doesn't.
He's already done it.
Not only has he raised taxes, he has increased spending, there is less money circulating in the private sector as a result of this.
Where's the evidence Obama does anything to grow the economy?
Where's the evidence that Obama is sensitive at all to the pain and suffering that average Americans are feeling because of an economic decline?
Where's the evidence?
There isn't any.
So all this notion, Obama's going to somehow go along with the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everybody but the rich.
If he does that, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to continue for everybody other than the top 5% of wage earners, it ain't going to matter.
It'll help some.
But it's not going to help those who do the hiring.
It's not going to help those who are already invested in business and want to grow them.
And it is not going to inspire those who want to start a business.
But I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's interested in private sector economic growth.
I haven't seen any evidence Obama's interested in private sector economic recovery.
I just haven't seen it.
Now, Chelsea Clinton got married over the weekend, and it was a big deal.
Three to five million dollars, ostensibly the cost.
And it's fascinating to read Tina Brown at The Daily Beast has a piece.
We needed this wedding.
We in America, we needed this wedding.
We needed it psychologically.
American people needed Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
I guess just like we need the bachelorette.
Why do we need Chelsea Clinton's wedding?
Well, we needed it to return to the freewheeling and booty and optimistic 90s.
And then they started praising people who were criticizing the expense of the wedding, 11,000 cake.
All of the expenses people were why do that kind of money?
Well, why spend that kind of money during his economic times?
And other people said it's a great stimulus.
People got paid, and you know, but the Clinton wedding, and this is the the point is the Clinton wedding was the Clintons admitting that trickle-down economics works, that supply side economic works.
Look at all the people got paid.
Look at all the people that were hired.
And it took a bunch of high earners to do it.
What's wrong with the three and a I I guarantee you not one of the vendors at the Clinton wedding is upset that anybody spent $10,000 on the cake.
I'll bet you the cake maker loves it.
Now you can talk about the hypocrisy of the Clintons all day long, uh, that they want to tax people who have that kind of money and spend they do, and they'll they'll try to escape the taxes themselves, like Kerry registering his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in Massachusetts, trying to save half a million dollars a year until he gets caught on it.
But the point is everything a Democrats do in their private lives demonstrates that Reaganomics works, trickle-down economics works, supply side, whatever you want to call it, works.
They come around and say, well, it's raise taxes on everybody in in order to do what?
Well, we have to fund the government.
The government has all these deficits.
So uh we can let the populace uh lose their jobs, we can let the population become poorer, uh, we can let the average American family have less disposable income.
But we might have we got to make sure the government's funded.
Uh the government is broke.
There isn't the money that they have been spending as it is.
Here's Palin, by the way, making the case for this.
This was Fox News Sunday yesterday.
She's asked about the uh Bush tax cuts expiring.
Here's what she said.
To reduce deficit spending and our enormous debt, you rein in spending, you cut the budget.
You don't take more from the private sector and grow government with it.
And that's exactly what Obama has in mind with this expiration of Bush tax cuts proposal of his.
So, no, you know, here again, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, they're all wet on this idea.
It's idiotic to think about increasing taxes at a time like this.
And a lot of Democrats are saying the same thing.
So when the when the rubber hits the road, the Democrats will always tell you what they really believe when it comes to economics.
It is their agenda that is triumphing over everybody's economic common sense, which means they care about them more than anybody else.
Staying with the audio soundbites last Friday on CBS uh early, what is it?
Yeah, the early show.
Obama was interviewed by Harry Smith.
Harry Smith said a federal judge backed up your opinion of the Arizona immigration law.
The method's wrong.
Is the mission correct?
I understand the frustration of the people of Arizona, but what we can't do is demagogue the issue.
And what we can do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states or cities or localities where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, I'm gonna be anti-immigrant, and I'm gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourselves.
Now, this is the president of the United States calling the governor of Arizona a demagogue, an anti-emigrant demagogue.
That's how he referred to the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer.
There are not 50 states who want a patchwork of immigration laws, and Arizona does not want a patchwork law.
Arizona's law mirrors the federal law that Obama refuses to enforce.
It's just it's very simple.
But once again, more evidence that the President of the United States has an animus for the governor of Arizona, an animus for the people of Arizona.
The President of the United States governing against the will of the American people.
Arizona's not alone in wanting to shut down the borders.
Sanctuary cities.
Obama doesn't care about them.
Sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law.
San Francisco and others where illegals can flock, get benefits and so forth.
That's a patchwork.
Obama doesn't care about that.
But it's just, it's it's it's more evidence here of the uh mindset of this administration to govern against the will of these of the American people.
It is shocking.
48% latest Rasmussen poll.
Forty-eight percent blame Obama for the bad economy.
47% blame Bush.
Now blame Obama for the economy.
He owns it.
It is his.
Speaking of illegal immigration, Arizona Sheriff, our own government has become our enemy.
One of the sheriffs out there, Paul Bebo, and I have not heard his name pronounced, so I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it right.
B A B E U. He might pronounce it Bab U, I'm not sure.
Um his deputies patrol a county along the U.S. Mexico border is hopping mad at the federal government.
He told the CyberCast News Service that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the U.S. illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
What's very troubling, he said, is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help, they put up billboard-sized signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things, and then behind that they drag us into court with the ACLU.
So who is partnered with the ACLU, the sheriff said.
It's the president, the Attorney General Eric Holder.
It's simply outrageous.
Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help.
Amen.
Right on.
More and more people are beginning to realize this.
Our own government has become the enemy.
Governing against the will of the American people.
No, not partnering.
This administration partner with anybody to help the Gulf Oil spill.
Nope.
They partner with Arizona to stop.
Nope.
They want the problem.
They don't want a solution to it.
They want the anxiety, the chaos.
You know what Obama lacks in Cajona is he makes up.
In Gaul.
He has utter gall.
Now here's another example of the government and Congress specifically.
Not being on the same page as the American people.
This is a Reuters story.
Here's the headline.
Congress questions BP's use of dispersants in the Gulf.
Now we put this in context.
The oil spill has been stopped.
The leak has been stopped.
They can't find the oil.
They're looking for it.
It's hiding next to the three and a half million jobs Obama saved.
But they can't find it.
All of the horror stories.
They've opened fisheries.
Nobody.
From the outset, and I, the obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh predicted all of this, and Time Magazine acknowledges that I've, they call me obnoxious, predicted all of this.
No big deal.
It's not that much oil compared to the water volume in the Gulf.
Not that much water.
There is no oil.
The leak has been stopped.
Problem solved.
So what does Congress do?
Congress questions BP's use of dispersants in the Gulf.
BP's use of dispersant chemicals on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is sparking questions from a U.S. government panel, which says the company used more of these compounds than the Environmental Protection Agency had directed.
But the EPA indicated in a statement yesterday that the difference between what they directed and what BP and the Coast Guard achieved is slight.
It's the difference between a 75% cut in dispersant use and a 72% cut.
The EPA acknowledged, however, the use of dispersants is always, quote, a difficult decision.
At the heart of the questions is a May 26th directive from the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and then on-scene coordinator Admiral Mary Landry making the use of dispersants a last resort in ordering BP to cut the use of these chemicals by 75% from a peak of 70 gallons used on May 24th.
So there's no oil, there's no toxicity, marshlands are coming back, the fisheries are being opened, problem solved, and yet Congress jumping on BP now for overusing dispersants.
Why?
What is the point of this?
They have to justify their existence.
They have to justify the panic.
They have to justify the chaos that they called.
They have to justify the $20 billion shakedown.
This oil spill was the worst environmental disaster in the history of the nation.
And now they can't even find it.
And so here comes the brave, courageous Democrat-controlled Congress.
Well, BP's still a bunch of creeps.
BP's still doing things wrong.
BP still overusing dispersants.
We need hearings.
We're going to frog march these executives back up here.
Obviously, Mother Nature.
and the ocean can handle the dispersants just as well and as easily as the ocean.
Seawater can handle the oil.
So here comes Congress to get in on the act after the problem solved because this disaster was supposed to fuel votes.
This disaster was supposed to be ongoing.
They didn't want this leak stopped.
This happened too soon.
Why it it's it was not not even August 1st when this thing was stopped.
No chance to get any gain in the elections in November from this now.
The dispersant is not even a regulated substance.
The name of the dispersant is called corexit, C-O-R-E-X-I-T.
It's not even regulated.
It is not toxic.
It is not combustible.
It has never been a regulated toxic material.
And yet the United States Congress is charging BP with overusing it by a mere three percent.
The EPA says that's a minimal amount that they used above and beyond what we suggested.
This is no different than when the levies broke in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, the very people who are allocated the money and demanded the levies be shored up, get to act like spectators, like they had no role in it.
The same thing here.
These Democrats moving in, okay, the problem got fixed.
They can't take credit for it.
No member of Congress did anything other than talk about how bad it was going to be, the end of life as we know it.
Perhaps the end of the Gulf and all the private sector businesses there.
And now, hey, they can't even find it.
They have to get themselves back in the game here and act like they're on the case, and BP is still the enemy.
Capitalism's still the enemy.
Government good, government holding evil capitalists to account.
The toxic stew is in Washington.
The toxic stew is the U.S. Congress.
The greed is not found in the corporate boardroom alone.
Greed is the fuel of Washington, D.C. We'll be back after this, don't go away.
Twenty-two years behind the golden EIB microphone as of yesterday, August 1st is our anniversary 22.
Here's an eye, L. Rushball, last week named the most important radio talk show host in history by the great authority of all things talk radio talkers magazine.
Great to have you here, ladies and gentlemen.
By the way, you know, this this story on the dispersants in the Gulf.
It's a Reuters story, and it's all about well, there's other poison out there.
Yeah.
He poisoned the Gulf with their oil spill, and now they've poisoned it with dispersants.
They can't find enough oil slicks.
They can't find enough oil, period.
Or other signs of horror or disaster to support the narrative of environmental doom and disaster.
So instead, Congress has to get in the game along with the media.
Well, these evil BP people put them all these dispersants.
So now we've got another approaching doom.
Another catastrophe, dispersants.
What will the dispersants do to the fishies?
Dispersants are in tide.
Dispersants are in your laundry detergent.
They are not toxic.
Doesn't matter how much you put in there.
And there's not enough, particularly what the amount of dispersants that have been used in the Gulf would not even fill one-tenth of a thimble compared to the water volume of the Gulf.
And yet they won't let go.
They won't let go.
There's no, damn it, there's no oil.
Damn it, we can't find it.
We gotta come up with some other disaster and blame the private sector for it.
That's all that's going on with the story about dispersants.
John in Mount Clemens, Michigan, you're first as we go to the phones today.
Great to have you here.
Thank you, Rush.
Rush, you started the show today talking a little bit about the impact that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are going to have on this already miserable economy.
Yes, sir, I did.
And I couldn't agree more.
And it got me to thinking, you know, over the years I've heard you and Many other conservative, what I consider economic experts talk about the fact that one of the reasons that people who pull a paycheck either weekly or every two weeks have a little bit taken away each time, or a lot of it taken away, as opposed to getting a bill at the end of the year from the federal government or state government, is if we got that, there would be quite an uprising.
Um I got me to thinking, it always bothered me because it's hard to make some people relate to that.
It's kind of a drip-drip-drip, and they get trained to get a certain amount of money.
And they don't really get that irate about what the government's taking away.
Well, this is one time where I think that method is going to backfire on the government because people are trained to get a certain check every week or every two weeks.
And on December 31st, they're going to draw their check and they're going to get the usual amount that they always plan on, that they always uh have allotted to whatever they're going to spend it on.
But you know what?
Come January 7th.
That number is going to change.
And it's the American people.
And if that number changes by 15, 20 bucks, 50 bucks, 100 bucks, 200 bucks, and those people who never really thought about what the government's taking away, start calling their HR departments and saying, hey, where's my 20 bucks?
Where's my 50 bucks?
Where's my hundred and fifty bucks?
Where's my 200 bucks?
I gotta pay the bill.
I gotta send money to my kid account.
A lot of these people are also going, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Obama said my taxes would not go up.
No tax increase for the middle class.
Exactly.
And you know what?
It's the same argument that you've been talking about over the last few weeks with Steinbrenner and the estate tax, but their rebut has always been, we're gonna feel sorry for the rich people, these kids want this money.
All of a sudden, it ain't the rich people anymore as they define them.
It's not that, it's all the people.
The people who use their brains, use their hands, use a combination of the two.
All of a sudden, and and we're all working men and women out here, by the way, Rush.
I I I can't stand uh Democrats call certain people working men and other people.
I know what you mean all together now, man.
That has that has bugged me for a long time.
Working men and women, well, that's just code word for union.
Working men and women is just code word for union people, blue-collar people.
That's that's what the Democrats mean.
When they're when they utter that phrase, working families.
Um, granted, they're trying to get it included, the umbrella to include everybody, but that they really talk about um uh union people in that mess.
Now, the the Bush tax cuts, why do they have to sunset?
Mm-hmm.
Well, well, Snerdley is halfway right.
He said the Democrats demanded they sunset in order for the tax cuts to pass in the first place.
The Bush tax cuts have to sunset because the Congressional Budget Office would not admit that they would save money.
The Bush tax cuts, interestingly enough, were passed via reconciliation.
Unless a bill can be shown to save money, they have to sunset.
And the CBO would not show the tax cuts save money because the the template, the narrative is that tax cuts cost the government money.
Yeah.
So this was this was done via re uh reconciliation.
The Bush tax cuts were done via reconciliation.
Unless a bill can be shown to save money, they have to sunset.
And that's the only reason, because everybody's lying about tax cuts.
So now they have to go back and okay, or can they extend them?
I I really I I find this uh I find this debate fascinating.
Because there are Democrats getting in on this debate.
Now, the Democrats, for the longest time, have been saying the only reason we're in an economic downturn is because of the Bush tax cuts.
And now there are some defections, these Democrats, and there are quite a few of them, and some of them are quite powerful in the Senate, suggesting that we need to extend them.
How can this be?
The only way this makes any sense is if you accept something that's very simple.
Liberals lie.
Democrats lie.
Once you understand that, once you accept it, you have basically gotten to second base, maybe even hit a triple in terms of dealing with Democrats and liberalism.
Oh, the past eight years.
Those Bush tax cuts, why they led to a recession, deficits, uh, economic collapse, horrible things.
All of a sudden they're gonna expire.
Why?
If the tax cuts caused this economic downturn, why isn't every Democrat running on the premise of tax increases?
Well, you knew it was coming.
The Congressional Black Caucus says that the ethics process, ethics investigation in the House of Representatives, is racist.
Maxine Waters also under investigation.
And so the Congressional Black Caucus, now saying the ethics investigation process in the House of Representatives is racist.
Predictable.
Duke Cunningham, was he black?
Tom DeLay, is he black?
All these Republicans that got kicked out on the ethics, are they black?
Foley?
▲
Export Selection