All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
October 5, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, welcome back.
It's the touch and go, Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB network, coming to you from the largest free education institution in the free or oppressed worlds.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I myself, ladies and gentlemen, am walking living proof that one does not need to go into debt for the rest of one's life to be educated.
My college education happened at home at the family dinner table with my dad as the professor, and now I am your professor.
You are attending the best school you could possibly attend.
And what's it costing you?
Zilch, zero nada, in real terms.
I mean, there's no tuition here.
There aren't any graduates because the education never stops.
There aren't any degrees.
I mean, look at all the education you get here.
If you do spring for a membership of my website, which is pitant.
If you do that, the access you have is encyclopedic.
You don't need to take out a loan.
You don't need to go get a student loan and be in debt, but you don't have to go get a worthless degree.
I have friends who have kids in law school right now, and they're not excited about it.
They got a year or two to go in law school, they're going to run past the bar.
And then where are they?
They're coming into a job market where there's 15 to 20% unemployment.
The uh the prospect of paying off their student loans, it's uh quite a depressing thing.
None of that exists.
When you become a student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies, and by the way, it's not just advanced conservatism that you learn here.
It is life lessons as well.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-288-2, the email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
I want to take you back to the archives.
We talked about the last time I participated in election night analysis on television.
It was on NBC in 2002.
It's eight years ago.
Many of you in this audience may not have been listening then.
Many of you may not have watched NBC's election night coverage.
It was the midterms.
We have uh a couple of sound bites.
This with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert.
The first soundbite, Tom Brokaw says, We're joined now by a powerful voice in American politics, a conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.
Earlier, John McCain called this a Republican breeze, as we're seeing it so far.
Do you think that's a fair characterization, uh, Mr. Limbaugh?
Well, I tell you what's amazing about this.
I was looking at the numbers.
You have 34 seats up.
The Republicans had to maintain 20, win 20 just to maintain where they are.
That's 60 percent that they had to win tonight.
Even if they lose a couple, they still have won a majority.
I think that this is uh probably not a dramatically historical night, but it is historical, as you've been talking about all night from the uh standpoint of how many times something this has happened since the Civil War.
But the amazing thing to me about this is the two campaigns that were run.
I mean, we had throughout the 90s the Democrats saying that they need to separate themselves from the old Democrats, such as McGovern and Mondale.
When they ran into trouble, they went back to those people.
The Democratic Leadership Council was set up to establish this new Democrat uh situation.
They talked about building a bridge of the 21st century, and when they got in trouble, where did they go?
They had to go way, way back to people who had retired.
Their better days are behind them.
If you look at the campaign, who did they send out to help Democrats in trouble?
Bill Clinton.
You didn't see future presidential candidates on the Democratic side out there trying to rouse the base.
Broka said, Well, we were we were saying earlier tonight looked like Republican Breeze.
It's now become a warm gale pushing the Republicans into office and Democrats out.
You know, I heard something earlier tonight.
I've been watching you guys uh backstage, and you I saw Carville too hiding behind a trash can, and I he was upset because the Democrats ran a Me Too campaign.
I would like to respectfully disagree with that.
I think this me too campaign was a piggyback effort at the last minute, but all year, the last two years actually, since George Bush was elected, they said he was an illegitimate president.
They said Florida is payback time.
There's a lot of anger down there, and Terry McCaula staked his personal reputation on it.
I think they've been opposing George W. Bush ever since he was inaugurated.
They've tried it on every issue.
They even tried separation on the war on terrorism for a while, and it backfired on them.
Their me too ism is a result of not standing for anything, or at least not being honest about what they stand for, not willing to tell people what they want, and they ran a negative campaign trying to get people upset to vote against Republicans.
And when they say, well, we didn't stand for anything, I think they did.
I think the face of the Democratic Party has been Tom Dashel and McAuliffe, and it's been entirely negative against a very popular president.
And I think the tactics of the last two weeks, well, as I said earlier in New Jersey and what happened in Minneapolis, I think it's just a both of them are little microcosms of the entire two years of the Bush administration up till now the way the Democrats have played it.
And they're going to have to get their act together.
Republicans just have to keep doing what they were doing.
They're going to formalize tax cuts, maybe accelerate them permanent, uh, make them permanent, uh, try to fix the public education system.
They ran on issues.
And it works every time it's tried.
Now, as those tax cuts that are set to perspire at the end of this year, and and uh and it there's a fascinating story on the Bush tax cuts in the uh stack of stuff today.
The Financial Times, let me find this.
Yes.
The Financial Times, Obama's promise to end tax cuts for rich unravels.
When I saw that headline, I said, unravels.
What uh what have I missed here?
And by the way, notice 2002 they did, they went back, they got Bill Clinton and they got Bill Clinton this time to tell the Democrats, go you better vote for health care, you're gonna lose your seat.
Uh Clinton's a kiss of death for Democrats when they go out and get him to endorse.
Same with Jimmy Carter.
They keep going back to these old relics.
At any rate, nobody in Washington has put it quite so bluntly, but it would seem almost certain now that Barack Obama will be unable to fulfill his pledge of reversing George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Last week, Democrat lawmakers returned home to prepare for next month's midterm elections, having failed in either chamber even to put the issue to a vote.
In spite of the fact that President Obama made reversing the tax cuts a central pledge of his election campaign along with ending combat operations in Iraq, a promise he fulfilled in August, the White House was abandoned last week by nervous Democrats to fight alone at the barricades.
And to the surprise of many, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat speaker, did not even schedule a vote before Capitol Hill went home.
And then there's there's this at the end.
The final and least likely scenario is that lawmakers are unable to produce any compromise, and the tax cuts are allowed to expire on December 31st.
This is the Financial Times says this is the least likely of three scenarios.
The least likely, the final and least likely scenario is lawmakers are unable to produce any compromise.
Tax cuts are allowed to expire.
This would set up an early showdown between what looks likely to be a Republican House and the Obama administration, in which the newly victorious Republicans extend the tax cuts to everybody and dare Obama to veto it.
In none of these three likeliest scenarios, they have two others that they posit here, Does Obama get what he wants?
So the Financial Times has a story, and it I think this story might be playing a role today in the stock market and its upward tick.
So you have that, you have this this premise here from the Financial Times that Obama's gonna lose this tax cut war no matter which option takes place.
And then we have this from the Associated Press, intending to talk about colleges and worker training, President Obama on Monday, suddenly found himself in a spirited election year debate with a business advisory group about whose tax cuts should be extended and for how long.
At a meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein pressed Obama to keep all of the Bush-era tax cuts, not just the middle class cuts.
That would give a boost to confidence, Feldstein declared.
SEC Commission Chairman William Donaldson added an extension would allay business and consumer uncertainty.
Now, from Obama's standpoint, you have to say, what do these two neophytes know?
Were either of them elected president of the Harvard Law Review?
because of the color of their skin?
What are these guys know?
The SEC chairman and Martin Feldstein versus Obama.
And Obama said, What do you clowns know?
I'm president.
I was Harvard Law Review.
You're a bunch of schlubs.
Obama replied to Feldstein and uh and Donaldson that his stand extending a tax cuts for everybody but the upper 2% would benefit 98% of American taxpayers.
You'd think that would provide some level of certainty, he said.
Always the glib answer.
Never mind that it's the remaining 2%.
It's actually far more than that when you consider how much of the income tax bite they pay.
It's the it's that upper 2% that pay and drive the economy.
So hear these two experienced economists telling this neophyte little man child president, look, you got a confidence problem out there.
If you extend everybody's tax cuts, it's gonna increase everybody's confidence about the possibility of a future recovery.
And Obama says, Well, I'm gonna give 98% of people a tax cut.
Why won't that help confidence?
Because they're not the people that hire anybody.
They're not the people that go invest.
We're talking about people at 200, 250 grand or above not getting a tax cut.
That small business, medium size, and large.
No confidence.
Zilch Zero Nada.
Obama either gets it or doesn't get it, doesn't matter.
I do believe he's an idiot where capitalism is concerned.
Obama also reiterated his view that tax breaks for top income tax brackets would do little to boost the recovery because the wealthy are not holding off buying flat screen TVs and other big ticket purchases for lack of a tax cut.
And he said those tax cuts are unaffordables.
He looks at the rich.
I'm not kidding you.
Obama looks at the rich and says, look at if they want to go buy a flat screen, they can, whether they get a tax cut or not.
So if if we don't have to give them a tax cut, because they're gonna go ahead and get their black big screen TV and they're going to go ahead and drive the economy.
And then he said these tax cuts are unaffordable.
If we're gonna spend 700 billion dollars, i.e.
a tax cut for the top two percent of wage earners, Obama says it seems it would be wiser having that 700 billion go into people who would spend that money right away.
I tell you, I folks, this this neophyte genuinely is an economic ignoramus.
Does he think that the supporters of the tax cut extension for all believe that the rich people will boost the economy by buying flat screen TVs?
Who are which are made in China, by the way, does he really think?
I mean, what I mean, this is this is this is it is ignorant.
No, it if they will that 700 billion he's talking about, they will use the money that they are allowed to keep to invest in their businesses and save or create jobs, which once upon a time we were told was Obama's top priority.
Obama dismissed the notion that the well-off, he included himself, would simply take our ball and go home if they didn't continue to get a big tax cut.
He said, Well, if they don't if we don't get the tax cut, they're just they're not gonna pout.
They're not they're they're gonna still be out there.
Mr. Obama, our Imam child.
They have already taken their trillion dollar ball home and they're sitting on it, you jackass, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but we have all of this pile of cash.
How many trillions is it that the news has reported that companies large and small are sitting on?
They're not investing it in anything.
They're not buying bonds, they're not buying stocks, they're not going into hedge funds, they're sitting on the cash.
Trillions of dollars.
They're already have taken their ball and gone Home.
Which is why we have 1% GDP growth and 9.6% unemployment.
They've already split the scene because they have no confidence.
And they're probably right if this guy is this scary as he if he is this adamant that they not be confident and that they not have this tax cut extended.
Which is not even a tax cut.
It's just the current rates.
Nobody's taxes are getting cut here.
We're not cutting the richest tax cuts.
The 36 rate's gonna stay 36 or 35.
It's not going to 33.
The only thing that's gonna happen is Obama's gonna raise taxes.
But nobody's taxes are being cut here.
They're sitting on trillions of dollars of cash.
And if you go back to Feldstein and Donaldson of SEC, Mr. Obama, extend the tax cut to everybody, and you'll inspire confidence.
Meaning they'll take the trillion dollars in cash they're sitting on and they'll start putting it into play.
This is where he's an ignoramus.
They're not putting the trillion dollars into play because they're trying to hold on to as much of it as they can before they get have it confiscated, which is what they think is coming, which is not confidence inspiring.
He's a jackass.
He's an economic illiterate.
He's an economic ignoramus.
And that's being charitable.
Last night on MSNBC, Barney Frank said that I launched a vicious homophobic attack against him.
and Yeah, grab uh Red Body of Soundbite number three and maybe yeah, keep number four standing.
This happened last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's new time period shift, whatever.
Said um Barney Frank, you've been targeted by National Republican attackers from Rush Limbaugh on down that food chain, and you're in a re-election race this year that has more action than you're usually accustomed to.
Do you feel that energy?
And that funding coming in from out of state, or is this a local uprising?
I would just make one correction, Lawrence, when you said this is from down.
I think it's from Marshall Member on U. By any valid measure.
He just launched this really uh even for him vicious homophobic attack.
Um, my opponent who's running against me.
I told the Wall Street Journal that uh he'd raised uh a lot of money from out of state.
He was very explicit earlier this year.
He said if I don't get a lot of help from out of state, I can't win this thing.
Uh he's helped by the right wing media, by Hannity and Lamboa, by Fox News.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what homophobic attack did we launch on.
We've never launched a homophobic attack on anybody.
We've never launched a homophobic attack on anybody.
I mean, we've played this song, Banking Queen.
Well, you think it's my boy Lollipop?
We've been doing that since uh.
We've been doing that since the early 90s.
And then do all right, that's enough for banking queen right now.
I'm trying to figure out what the well grab my boy Lollipop.
Maybe it's this.
If you have this handy, I didn't ask for it in advance.
I may take a wall of okay, go ahead and put it in there and start it.
Now, we've been doing this for years, including the sound effects.
Now, we've been doing this for years.
Now, we've been doing this for years.
Now, we've been doing this for years.
Now we've been doing that since my gosh.
I mean the early 1990s.
That was the original and still is.
A Barney Frank update theme, my boy Lollipop.
The Millie Small.
Seriously, I don't we've not launched a homophobic attack on Barney Frank.
That's by the way, that's Dave Baby Cortez.
The title of that tune is Rinky Dink.
Dave Baby Cortez also had.
We could have probably used this at one time for a Barney Frank update.
His song preceding Rinky Dink was called a happy organ.
Rushlin bought the EIB network back after this.
Lo and behold, look what we have here.
Dave Baby Cortez and a happy organ.
Just think Barney Frank listening to the deal deal.
Elliot Spitzer works in this song too.
A happy organ.
There's a harmonica in My Boy Lollipop, which is called a mouth organ, by the way.
There's a harmonica in my body.
Dave Baby Cortez.
I know this is this is ancient for some of you.
This is from 1958, the happy organ.
Doodle, doodle, doodle, doodle.
I've been waiting my whole life for um Jay Z or P. Diddy to do a cover.
Happy organ.
All right, let's go to the phones.
People have been uh have been waiting.
Here is Steve in Detroit.
Great to have you on the program.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Great to be with you.
Um the Kinston, North Carolina story that you were speaking about earlier, where the uh the Department of Justice has overruled their uh nonpartisan, uh the electorate's nonpartisan ballot choice.
You know, the city of Detroit has had a nonpartisan election for mayor and city council for decades.
And so I would imagine the logical extension would be that if the DOJ has a problem with Kinston's new law, then they should have a problem with Detroit.
Or in that the 15 or 20 percent of the electorate in Detroit that is not African American is clearly potentially disenfranchised by not having a Republican to vote for.
Well, that's not how it works.
Uh and the Obama DOJ has made that clear when it comes to voting rights.
They're not concerned with the voting rights of whites, because whites have been the oppressive majority.
Um the civil rights division people to day at Obama's Justice Department will tell you that the reason the Black Panther case was thrown out is because it's not possible to intimidate white voters.
The only voting rights they're concerned with are black voting rights.
So that's been the history of the country.
Now the Kinston, North Carolina case, is a year ago when they went in there.
But see, you're talking in Kinston, 60% of the population is black, whereas in Detroit, it's uh much higher than that.
I he said, what did you say 15 to 20% of the voting population in Detroit is white?
Is that what you said?
He's gone.
I think it's what he said.
Well, if that's okay, if that's if that's true, it doesn't matter what you put on the ballot.
I mean, does it?
It really doesn't matter.
Rob in Chicago.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Oh, hello, Mr. Professor Rush.
Yes.
Greetings from one infidel to another.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, uh now perhaps I'm treading over old ground here, but doesn't it seem very, very odd that no one in the Democratic Party seems the least bit concerned with this election, at least from the Illinois perspective.
I'm looking at TARP, millions unaccounted For health care.
Nobody wanted it.
And it has numerous onerous items hidden stealthily in the bill, aimed at the middle class, I might add, which have absolutely nothing to do with health care.
You've got 10% unemployment, depending upon where you live.
And these Democrats are committing political suicide.
And it appears that absolutely no one in Washington seems to care.
At least many of us in Chicago feel that way anyway.
Wait a second.
Now you're confusing me with the Chicago business.
You're throwing in the uh the the perks or the porks uh for Chicago in the health care bill, and you're talking about Democrats don't seem to care about their plight.
Are you saying the Democrats don't seem to care they're gonna be able to do that?
They don't care about getting re-elected.
Okay.
Um I mean, I I'm just taking that as an individual citizen living in the Chicago area.
No, I but what is what is health care and its details in Chicago have to do with whether or not they're afraid of the elections.
I mean I'm just trying to follow the thought process.
Well, you have to get you have to get outside of the the uh metro Chicago area.
You get outside of the Metro Chicago area, you get into the suburbs, people are scared to death of what this is going to entail as far as taxes in health care.
This is destruction of the middle classes.
We know it.
Right.
And we all recognize this.
Yes.
But then you're and our and our representatives don't care.
They don't care if we vote them out.
They still voted for it.
We went to rallies, we went to tea parties, we we were at functions.
All right.
I'm still a little confused here because I uh it it's it's probably my fault here.
I don't know help me out here.
You're right.
You you don't sense the panic of elected Democrats over the fact that they're gonna lose big.
Is that what I'm hearing you say?
That is correct, sir.
Okay, now stop right there.
I do not know what healthcare's got to do with that.
That's uh because are you also saying they don't care that they have destroyed the health care system?
Yes, they that is true.
Okay, true.
Not that we're gonna be able to do that.
I can explain both, but stealthily uh hidden items in this bill which have absolutely nothing to do with health care.
Yeah.
And anyone who has taken the time to read it knows that they would just be devastating to the middle class.
Okay, so you what you don't understand why they would devastate and destroy the middle class.
That is correct, sir.
Well, did what did Castro do?
He destroyed the middle class.
What did Hugo Chavez do?
Same thing.
What did V.I. Lennon do?
Same thing.
What did Mount Sae Tongue do?
Not only that, they killed a bunch of them.
Well, we have a lot of people that don't seem to read their history.
Right.
And now don't read these people because they're doomed to repeat it.
Right.
Well, these people believe that it's free.
The people that you're talking about who don't seem to be concerned about it think that health care is going to be free, and remember, they're not going to get the big shock until 2014.
Most of this doesn't kick in until 2014.
Some of this stuff that's kicking in now, uh, like um uh coverage for pre-existing conditions is actually gonna cost you money.
That's that's surprising some people.
But the answer to your question is that you you're basically asking the same question, and I was just having to make sure I understood that.
Why aren't the Democrats concerned they're gonna lose?
And why aren't they concerned that they have destroyed the health care system of the country?
because in their minds they don't think they have.
In their minds they have cemented their power, they've transferred more and more of it to the government.
This is their objective.
They're not out for the people.
They're not out for the middle class.
Everything they say and do is a lie.
This is a giant success for them to to to have confiscated one-sixth of the U.S. economy and to put it under the control of the federal government.
That was an objective.
If truth be known, they're happy.
So I was trying to say last week, Obama is Happy.
Obama is satisfied.
He is very content with himself.
He carries a list around.
According to this Rolling Stone interview, he carries a list around things he wants to do.
He is well on his way to accomplishing the reordering and the reformation of this country.
He's well on his way to it.
Now, the Liberal Democrats who have voted for this, who now may end up losing, are telling themselves their seat was worth it.
These are true believers.
These are people who have, I mean, this has been a wet dream of theirs for 60 years.
This has been even longer since FDR.
Nationalized health care, because they know what it means.
They may lose this election.
They may lose the next two, but they think eventually they're going to be able to get their power back because it goes in cycles.
And when they get their power back, look at how much they're going to have.
I mean, these are in the old Soviet Union, these communists believe they didn't live in four-year cycles.
They lived to infinity.
If they had to take a couple steps back now and then to move one step forward, they would do it.
But they never lost sight of the carrot that was dangling in front of them.
And it didn't matter if it took them two years to get there or four years or a lifetime.
I mean, we're the modern incarnation of Democrat, but we're not talking Democrats as you have known.
We're not talking about JFK Democrats.
We're not even talking about Hubert Humphrey Democrats.
We are talking about Fidel Castro Democrats.
We're talking about Hugo Chavez Democrats.
These are the people.
Look at who Obama has grown up admiring, emulating.
Look at who his mentors are.
None of this is a mystery.
It's just hard for people to get their arms around it.
A lot of people were defrauded in the election.
There are a lot of people going to be shocked and stunned, or are already beginning to be shocked and stunned over what this election meant.
But as far as the Democrats being worried about loot, they knew what was coming.
They knew they're a governing minority.
They knew that they don't represent a majority of the thinking.
This is why they're going to take the advantage of this brief two-year period where they had supermajorities in both houses along with the White House to ram as much of this stuff down our throats as possible.
This is why they're talking about coming back at a lame duck session and implementing or passing 15 more pieces of legislation that the country doesn't want.
Because they know they are governing against the will of the people.
They hold the people in contempt.
The people are stupid, incompetent, unsophisticated, they don't know what's good for them.
It's a ruling minority that's made to look larger than it is because the media is on their side and the media portrays them as normal and what's, you know, as normal as a sunrise and sunset.
They knew they had limited time.
They have been in their two-minute drill for the past two years.
They have been savoring this.
They're when I tell you that they have been wet dreaming this for 60 years.
Do not doubt me.
This has all been about recreating in Washington the Chicago political machine.
It's about Chicagoing the country.
They knew they had limited time.
This is why they don't even read the legislation.
Don't take the time to read it because the summary is all that matters.
Government get control of it, fine.
How?
We don't care.
What kind of mess it creates?
We don't care.
As long as it says, as the secretary shall determine, when everybody's health care is concerned, that's all that matters.
That's why they don't care to read the bill.
That's why they don't care to have anybody else read it to them.
That's why they don't even finish writing the legislation.
Because they're this is generality, big picture stuff for them.
And that is government control over as much as happens in this country as they can secure.
This is it's this is serious.
That's why they're they're not concerned about losing.
They knew this would be the price to pay.
Pure and simple.
A little long here, as uh usually happens when I get on a roll, so we'll take a brief time out.
Come right back after this.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Democrats, it's actually a good question the guy had the previous caller.
I just wanted to make sure I understood it before I waited in there to answer it.
The Democrats know that the bureaucracy will live on.
The bureaucracy does live on.
I mean, it's there.
It never shrinks.
And look at how it's been expanded now.
The bureaucracy will live on, it will take care of them, even if they're temporarily unelected.
Brandon in Pensacola, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You are on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, uh, Rush.
Glad you took my call.
Um, I've only been listening for a few years, but it's uh it's really a great show.
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
Um I was a little I was a little um getting some con uh mixed messages from the start of the show, though.
I was wondering, um you said that the Democrats were uh they're suffering so now so much now because they're uh starting to really come to light with what they really are.
But then Levy you said that they're trying to distance themselves from being Democrats.
So what what did you mean by that?
There are some Democrats who want to win re-election.
There are some Democrats who are not like the leadership.
There's some Democrats who have not gone over to the you know the dark side.
And they have to, in in running to be re-elected, the tide is so negative to Democrats that they're running away from the label.
They don't want people to know they're Democrats.
They're not using the fact that they're in the same party as the president as a bonus, somebody help them.
They're not supporting any of the big legislative items that the Democrat Congress and Obama has passed and signed.
They're trying to distance themselves from it because they know that they are a ruling minority and the I mean, they can read the polls.
Sixty percent of country wants health care repealed.
Sixty percent of the country wants the tax cuts made permanent.
I mean, they they don't not want what the Obama agenda is.
Does that help?
Yes, sir, it does.
Thank you.
You bet.
Glad you called.
I'm glad I have a chance to clarify that.
This is Maureen in Berkeley.
Yes, Berkeley, California.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, Tea Party greetings from Berkeley, California.
And listening a long time.
It's an honor to be here today.
Thank you very much.
Uh, lived in Chicago for ten years prior to moving out here, and just want to comment and reiterate on your your idea that Obama is just clueless, that it's those of us that earned, you know, just over two fifty, but we're small business owners that really were driving so many things.
And uh the current uncertainty has just wiped out so many things we don't know where to go.
My husband and I had two small businesses that we were running in addition to our regular work.
Yeah.
Employed between five and ten people seasonally, and uh have folded up shop on on just about all of it at this point.
Exactly.
You've already told them go.
You've already no rush.
I've I've thought about, you know, is now the time.
Are we at the bottom of the market?
Should I get back into things?
But I'm so concerned, you know, with having them real estate that things are are not there yet.
I I don't know what to do, so we're just paralyzed.
Exactly.
You have taken your ball and gone home.
You're not buying big screen TVs.
You don't know what your future holds, but you fear that it isn't good.
So you're not you're not we're at the point where we're rating out the uh the good savings that we worked hard to put away for all of that time.
By the way, you got to explain something.
I got twenty seconds here.
Uh you said that you're a tea party in Berkeley.
I But there's not many of us.
It's pretty small.
We can use one teacup to share and just pass it around.
That's that makes sense then.
I was gonna say.
And you probably have to meet in private, secluded.
Yeah, I did take my my uh my son to one event and taught him the the grand idea of holding up a Sign and being the oddball that was looked at and you know saying that it was his future being torn away and using it as uh as an educational experience for him.
But good.
Well see the bottom line is folks, even in Berkeley, the Tea Party is there.
The CBO Congressional actually congressional research service, um Tom Coburn commissioned this research.
Health and human services has failed to meet a third of Obamacare's mandated deadlines.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
▲
Export Selection