All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
October 6, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let's see here.
This is what is this?
You know, it's MSNBC, but it's ADP data, automatic data process, paycheck bunch.
U.S. private employers unexpectedly shed jobs in September, reinforcing the belief that the U.S. Federal Reserve will embark on another round of monetary policy stimulus.
to support the economic recovery as early as next month.
ADP's National Employment Report Wednesday said that U.S. private employer payrolls fell by 39,000 jobs in September.
By contrast, a Reuters consensus forecast was for an increase of 24,000 jobs.
So they're only off here by about 63,000 jobs.
And that is why it was unexpected.
So all of these weekly jobs reports that said unemployment claims were going down were lies, or maybe they weren't.
Maybe it was public sector jobs that were being created.
But private sector, private employers unexpectedly shed jobs in September, which means that the stimulus for the recovery is going to have to be ramped up again.
And the Democratic Congress left town without resolving a tax issue or the budget, which means there's no change in store.
These private sector employers laying people off see no change.
They have no idea what to do.
When you have no idea what to do and when you are afraid that what stares you in the face is higher expenses is you start cutting costs.
And as everybody knows, the fastest and most efficient way to do that is to fire people, which is what happened.
If you've seen this talk that Bite Me's out and Hillary's going to be the VEEP in 2012, what in the world, how stupid do they think we are?
I know this is Bob Woodward putting it out there.
But don't forget, Bob Woodward also talked to Bill Casey, was in a coma.
Bill Casey came out of his coma to give some quotes to Woodward and went back into coma.
What would Hillary gain by running with Obama?
You know what I think this is?
I think, folks, this is the seeds of Operation Chaos still sprouting.
This is the fact that Hillary is still considered in the presidential, vice presidential mix.
Operation Chaos continues to show promise.
But I mean, what would Hillary Clinton gain by running with Obama?
If she were to be his VEEP, she'd have to defend everything he did.
Everything.
Including the deficits that she just got through saying were a national security threat.
Remember that?
She said the deficits are a national security threat.
She can't run around and say stuff like that if she's vice president.
She has removed herself from the Senate.
She has plausible deniability on virtually every vote except Obamacare because she's tied to that.
In my mind, Hillary has perfectly, if not brilliantly, set herself up as the better choice to lead the party in 2012.
So why would she lose VEEP business?
Why embrace a guy likely to face a second historic wipeout in 2012 to get the Reagan Democrats back that are leaving Obama?
Well, that is happening.
It's a bunch of stories here in the stack That Reagan Democrats are abandoning Obama in droves.
Hillary can get him back as Veep?
Well, I know they voted for her in the primaries, but this is she's not going to be.
Does this set her up to be president of her own in 2016 by being the VEEP?
That's the only thing I can see out of this.
But see, I see much more benefit if she keeps her distance.
She could run against Obama in the primaries of 2012.
She could wait until 2016 to test the waters without being tied to Obama's self-destruction.
My instinctive reaction here is that it's preposterous.
If she were vice president, she'd have to live with Bill.
Stop and think about that.
They'd have to move into the vice president's home there at the U.S. Naval Observatory.
I've seen that place.
She'd have to move in with Bill.
As Secretary of State, she can keep continents between them.
But I mean, as vice president, the only time she can get away from him is at funerals.
And I think the Reagan Democrats voted for Hillary in the primaries because of Operation Chaos, not because they like Hillary.
Let's be honest here, folks.
And that's what continues to pay off even to this day.
I want to go to the debate that happened a couple of nights ago, Linda McMahon versus Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut.
I had these soundbites yesterday, but I didn't get to them.
And for that, I apologize.
I should have played them for you yesterday, but we have them.
We have three of them.
And the really priceless ones are when Blumenthal tries to describe how he would create jobs.
He hasn't a clue.
But before that, I want you to hear TV ad.
Linda McMahon ran against Blumenthal on his continual lying about his service in Vietnam.
I'm Linda McMahon, and I approve this message.
Would you lie about serving in a war?
We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam.
I served in Harvard.
Dick Blumenthal did again and again.
When we returned, we saw nothing of disgratitude.
He covered one lie with another.
Since the days that I served in Vietnam.
If he lied about Vietnam, what else is he lying about?
Well, that's a good question, but there's a better question.
Is he all there?
He continues to lie in the face of everybody knowing he's lying.
When I serve in Vietnam, this is pathological.
I also just myself, I don't trust anybody this skinny.
I just don't.
I don't trust anybody who looks like they need to eat.
That jawline, the neck is too scrawny.
It just, you know, think, what do these people do when they're off time?
Do they, what do they do?
It's not normal, folks.
Blumenthal looks like he might have dabbled in witchcraft for all I know.
But I just don't trust these guys that look like they never eat.
They look like they sip cocktails at four in the afternoon, but never eat anything.
What was that?
Somebody clearing their throat at me.
Yeah, well, no, HR, you don't look like you need to eat.
Besides, I've seen you eat.
But this is just somebody that fastidious, somebody that obsessed with their appearance.
I don't know.
It's just me.
Anyway, we move on.
Monday night in Hartford, Linda McMahon debating Richard Blumenthal, the Attorney General in Connecticut.
During the debate, Linda McMahon said, you've talked about you want to incentivize small businesses.
Tell me something.
How do you create a job?
Now listen to this.
A job is created, and it can be in a variety of ways by a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services.
And the main point about jobs in Connecticut is we can and we should create more of them by creative policies.
And that's the kind of approach that I want to bring to.
This is Washington.
I have stood up for jobs when they've been at stake.
I know about how government can help preserve jobs.
And I want programs that provide more capital for small businesses, better tax policies that will promote creation of jobs, stronger intervention by government to make sure that we use the made in America policies and by America policies to keep jobs here rather than buying products that are manufactured overseas as WWE has done.
Folks, that's verbal diarrhea.
I mean, that's, you just want to get this here.
Take a laxative.
This is.
I don't know how this guy is getting.
The only way he's polling at all is because Democrat loyalty to the party.
That is.
I mean, it's a disservice to Mumbo Jumbo to describe that as Mumbo Jumbo.
I want you to listen to this again.
The simple question was: how do you create a job?
I'm great with words, and describing this is proving elusive to me.
Here it is again.
A job is created, and it can be in a variety of ways by a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services.
And the main point about jobs in Connecticut is we can and we should create more of them by creative policies.
And that's the kind of approach that I want to bring.
Stop the test.
Okay, so you spout a bunch of nonsense.
I mean, literal gobbledygook.
This is, you talk about wandering aimlessly in search of a thought.
This is a bunch of meaningless syllables put together in ways that happen to make words, but nothing else.
And then you follow that by saying, and that's the kind of approach that I want to bring to Washington.
Exactly.
Baseless, specious, stupid, empty, vacuous, vapid, hollow, invisible.
He said the word jobs a lot, but I don't even know that he, does he think he has one?
Anyway, here's the rest of the bite again.
I have stood up for jobs when they've been at stake.
Stop the time.
I mean, I can't, I can't, I just can't.
I can't sit silently, idly by here as this guy talks.
I have stood up for jobs when they've been at stake.
What in the hell does that mean?
I stood up for jobs.
You mean he's like, okay, when you stand up for jobs, you support jobs?
That's a policy.
You stand up for jobs when they've been at stake.
When you're not at stake, you don't stand up for them, but if this were true, this guy would have to be opposing Obama because jobs are at stake because of Obama, and he's not standing up for jobs.
That's the way I hear it.
Jobs are at stake.
Obama's destroying them.
This guy says he stands up for jobs when they're at stake, but he's not.
Does he open doors for jobs?
Does he take off his hat for jobs?
Does he give up a seat on a bus for a job?
I mean, this is the way he's talking about jobs.
About how government can help preserve jobs.
And I want programs that provide more capital for small businesses, better tax policies that will promote creation of jobs, stronger intervention by government to make sure that we use the made in America policies and by America policies to keep jobs here rather than buying products that are manufactured overseas as WWE has done.
I wonder how many products this guy has in his house or his car that were made overseas.
I know.
The government's going to intervene.
The government's going to intervene.
Here's what Linda McMahon said.
Government, government, government.
Government does not create jobs.
It's very simple how you create jobs.
An entrepreneur takes a risk.
He or she believes that he creates a goods or service that is sold for more than it costs to make it.
And if an entrepreneur thinks he can do that, it creates a job.
Okay, that's it.
I mean, that's...
I know, I know.
Look, I'm being a little harsh on poor old Dickie.
Expecting a Democrat to know anything about jobs is asking a lot, I know.
But still, he could do better than that faking it.
Well, we have a story here from MediaIte, which is a site that reprints what happens in the media out there.
Now, listen to this.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charitable organization started by two people whose names escape me, is helping fund a year-long series for ABC News.
The expensive series entitled Be the Change, Save a Life.
We'll take viewers all around the world and focus on the diseases and health conditions that disproportionately afflict the world's poorest.
Basically, Bill and Melinda Gates are going to give ABC News a million and a half dollars to produce a piece of propaganda.
ABC News is accepting a million and a half bucks from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Two people found, I can't remember their names.
Now, imagine if I were to give Fox News a million and a half dollars and say, here, produce a series on American exceptionalism.
Can you imagine what would happen if I did that?
And not only if I gave the million and a half to fund it, that I directed how it's going to be produced.
I'm paying for it, so therefore I am in charge of the content.
Fox News.
ABC News taking a million and a half.
I look at, there's, there's, never mind.
Never mind.
I just, I. Before I really step in, I'm going to go to the phones.
Jeff in Greenville, South Carolina.
Great to have you here as we start on the phones.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you, sir, from the first state to succeed from the union and also the home and friend of Jim DeMant, the honorable one.
You bet, sir.
Thank you very much.
When did you secede?
Well, you mean way that quicking about doing it again if you're not.
I know, yours about the war against northern aggression.
Okay.
Anyway, the reason I called you is to give you evidence about earlier what you said in the day about people that have money that necessarily have to spend it and that they hold on to it, which if they spend it, of course, it would make the economy grow.
Right.
I sold luxury cars for 10 years.
At the end, that was telling Alexis.
Would you?
Okay, I was going to ask you.
You, you, you, oh.
You sell luxury cars and you say Lexis is a luxury car.
Okay.
I used to sell Lexis.
I mean, I used to sell luxury cars.
I'm not anymore.
Why not?
Because nobody's buying them.
Is that the point?
Yeah, 2007 was my best year.
And 2008, I made a little under half what I made before because people that have money doesn't necessarily have to go out and buy a new car.
And what ends up happening, back in 2007, they came out with this new model of the LX, which was selling from $78,000 to $81,000.
And nationwide, they're paying sticker price.
Yeah.
But come the next year, you know, when you're a commission only and people are not coming in, you know, people are smart.
They're not going to bring, you know, go buy.
Let me tell you what's fascinating about this caller.
Let me tell you what's fascinating about this.
Because he's bouncing off the story yesterday, Obama out there saying, wait, look at the rich, they're going to buy their big screen TVs anyway.
Whether we give them a tax cut or not, they're going to be buying their tax.
They're not going to take their ball and go home.
The difference, what really needs to be pointed out here, we have to define rich versus wealthy.
Far too many people mean rich people when they really are talking about wealthy.
Or they mean wealthy people when talking about rich.
Well, there's a huge difference.
Somebody making $250,000 a year is not wealthy.
In fact, I would go so far as say somebody making $250,000 is not rich.
They're paying the biggest burden of the federal income tax.
They don't have money to burn.
It's really a mistake to categorize these people as the group that will spend regardless of taxes because they've got so much.
I mean, they've got more than they need is the way the Democrats look at it.
So I guarantee you, most families, $250,000 a year do not think they've got more than they need.
Do you agree with me on that, Sturdley?
All right.
Now, see, the I got a break here in 15 seconds, but I am going to expand on this as only I can and make this, this is going to be a classic illustration of making the complex understandable.
Because the wealthy are spent, even they're dialing it back some.
But that's not who we're really talking about here.
Okay, let's go back.
Our caller, South Carolina, says that he used to sell luxury cars.
He described as a luxury car, Lexus.
He said the rich stopped buying luxury cars starting in 2007, and it just continued to get worse.
He's now not selling cars.
The rich aren't buying luxury cars.
This term rich is used to encompass and include way, way, way too many people.
And it is done to the benefit of the Democrat Party.
Because there's well-to-do, there's rich, there's upper-middle class, there's filthy rich, there's wealthy, there's the idle wealthy, and then there is the elite bluebloods who inherited great fortunes.
And remember, behind every fortune is a great crime.
But that's a subject for another day.
I would argue, just myself, that a Lexus is not really a luxury car.
It's way, way, way, way, way up there.
For a lot of people, it's way, way up there in a luxury car.
But I'll give you, back early 90s, this whole subject has fascinated me my whole life.
And back in the early 90s, when I first started meeting really, really, really wealthy people.
And I asked a guy, in your circle, circle of people that you work with, circle of people you do business with, what's rich to you?
He said, you're not a player unless you have 500 million.
Your net worth is 500 million.
If you're not a 500 million, you're not a player.
Okay, the $500 million guys and above that, the $250 million guys, buying a Lexus is no different than buying a pack of cigarettes.
They're going to do it regardless of what tax policy is.
We're not talking about consumption.
This is not simply about consumption.
This is where Obama is going off the rails.
This is where he is a jackass, an ignoramus on economics and particularly capitalism.
And I do believe both.
I believe he is an ignoramus on capitalism and is also purposely destroying capitalism.
And I think the two go hand in hand.
The only reason you'd want to destroy capitalism is if you've been lied to about how unfair, unjust, and immoral it is.
And I believe he has been maleducated, ill-educated.
He has been lied to by a bunch of angry people his whole life who turned him into an angry person and who believe that the ills of this world are rooted in capitalism.
I mean, it's right out of the Engels and Marx belief system.
So it's entirely compatible that you could be an economic ignoramus and a jackass where capitalism is concerned and purposely want to destroy it.
So he covers both bases there.
Now he says to his economic advisors, Mr. President, really, you ought to leave alone the tax structure right now.
In fact, this whole language, tax cuts, nobody's taxes are going to get cut.
If the Bush tax rates are left alone, nobody's going to get a tax cut.
It's just that income tax rates are not going to change.
The only way that taxes are going to change is go up if Obama does not stand aside.
If Obama lets these things sunset, he lets them end, then everybody's taxes are going up.
And I mean everybody's.
Not just the 250,000 and up people.
Everybody's taxes are going up.
But nobody's taxes are being cut.
And this is what Obama and Axel Rod the Democrats all want you to think is that what we're talking about here is cutting taxes for the rich.
We're not.
We're talking about leaving them alone.
So Obama's two economic advisors, one of them, Martin Feldstein, says, Mr. President, the problem you have out there is that there's no confidence, not among consumers exclusively.
There's no confidence among investors.
There's no confidence among people who will use what they've got to grow their businesses and thus grow the economy.
If you are going to play games with their tax rates, then they are going to sit on what they have and their focus is going to be preservation of principle.
This is what they were trying to tell him.
Their focus is going to be how do we lose as little as we can rather than how do we take risks and grow this.
Because Mr. President, under your policy, they're not going to think there is much of a chance at growth.
The risk is going to be too high.
So they're going to sit on it.
In other words, you jackass, they've already taken the ball and gone home.
They're already sitting on their trillions of dollars of cash that we've heard about for months now because the people in the media think that, like Chris Matthews said the other day, businesses are doing this on purpose to purposely depress the economy to hurt Obama.
They don't understand that the self-interest aspects of capitalism are what drive it and are good for everybody.
You see, self-interest is not selfish.
They are entirely different things.
Any father, a mother acting in self-interest incorporates the family.
When they act to improve themselves, they're improving everybody in whom they come in contact.
But to Obama, giving these people a current tax rate of 35% rush, he would say to me, I mean, they're still going to buy their flat screens.
Mr. President, the wealthy don't buy flat screens.
The wealthy don't even really know what they are.
The wealthy have somebody go set up their media room and they walk in and just, where's the power switch when I want to watch this?
And who do I call if it doesn't work?
They're not walking into Best Buy or wherever and looking at flat screens, the people you're talking about.
They really don't care.
They're not buying Lexuses.
The truly wealthy, I don't know if you've noticed it or not.
The shops where they shop are still open and there's still traffic in there.
The wealthy are still chartering yachts for Mediterranean cruises at $250,000 a week.
But they're not the rich.
See, Mr. Obama's tax policy is not going to affect the wealthy in terms of consumerism.
What we're talking here about is the people who will invest what they're now sitting on in risky ideas, entrepreneurial ideas that will result in growing businesses, which will require more people to work at them, which is jobs, which is what the president keeps telling us he's interested in.
But he talks about that 98%, the 2% that may see their taxes go up.
Well, they can afford it.
I mean, I'd rather have that $700 billion taken away from them and given to government.
He actually says, the president says, I want to take that $700 billion, which is a mythical lying.
Now, he doesn't know what the number is.
$700 billion, and I'm going to transfer it to the people who spend it today because they need to spend it because they don't have much money because of my own policies.
So the president believes, or wants everybody to believe that he believes, that economic recovery is driven by consumerism.
Why isn't there a whole lot of consuming going on out there?
Even people who are not rich or not wealthy or not the idle rich or not the idle wealthy, they're not spending.
There are necessities that have to come first.
The flat screen is a luxury, if you will, to the people he's talking about.
What isn't happening is productivity.
We are not creating supply.
And therefore, the creation of jobs isn't happening.
Before you can have consumption, you have to have disposable income.
To have disposable income, you have to have a job.
For people to have a job, there have to be ongoing enterprises and businesses that are investing in their own growth and are enjoying success, which is increasingly hard to do with this regime because success is punished.
The more successful you are, the bigger target you are of people like the president and his party.
Because somehow, it's not fair that you're succeeding while somebody else isn't.
So we're going to take what you have achieved as a result of your success, and we're going to distribute that to the other people who are the victims of your success.
And this is how jackass neophytes look at capitalism.
So we have no hope as long as this guy is in charge and is ignoring the people who know what they're talking about for whatever reason.
He wants to destroy it or he's an economic jackass, whichever, the two go hand in hand.
As long as his policy is in play, nobody's going to be buying flat screens because nobody's going to be making them.
Well, I take that back.
There will always be people make flat screens for a relatively few who can afford them and just charge the price that's necessary because the people we're talking about here at this stage really don't care about the price of things.
There is a level of wealth where that doesn't matter to people.
But the intelligence or the common sense of what they're doing does enter into it.
I don't know how to explain this.
The wealthy, the people I'm told, the wealthy, to whom the cost of something really doesn't matter.
Even in times like this, when they check into a hotel, might forget the three-bedroom triplex suite and just go for a one-bedroom suite.
But they're still going to check in and they're still going to go for the one-bedroom suite.
But the three-bedroom triplex at the top of the hotel is going to stay vacant simply because they don't think it makes sense in this economic time to spend their money that way.
And that's all part of the whole confidence thing.
So it does affect all levels.
But this idea that people at 250 grand need to be punished, they need to take their earnings away from them and they're still going to buy their flat screens.
It's an insult to them and to everybody else in the country to reduce this economic disaster to the simplistic notion of buying flat screens when they can still do it.
That's not what we're talking about here.
We're talking about having to overcome our own government.
We're talking about having to overcome policies implemented by our own president.
We're talking about the obstacles being placed in the way of prosperity by our own government.
That's what people face today.
And that's what many people don't think they have ever faced before.
Sure, there's competition out there from your competitors, but the government never got in your way.
Not like this.
We got a taste of it with Jimmy Carter, but not this bad.
We've never had as the number one obstacle to prosperity in this country, the president of the United States.
That's what's new.
And that's what people are awakening to each and every day.
So yeah, economic neophyte, jackass, or purposely destroying it, the two go hand in hand.
Because the only reason you would want to destroy capitalism is if you've been lied to about what it is by all of your professors and by all of your friends and by all the theoreticians that you have hanging around you.
All the Marxists and all the communists and all the people who believe in black liberation theology, whatever bunch of people you've had, people who want to blow up the Pentagon, all your closest friends, the people who hate this country and have convinced you too.
That can make you want to destroy it.
And be an absolute blithering idiot at the same time.
Let me tell you something, folks.
In California, people on welfare can buy flat screens.
People on welfare in California can go to Las Vegas casinos and cash their debit welfare cards.
People on welfare in California can go to Miami, Florida, get on a cruise ship.
People working for a living don't seem to be able to do those things now.
Let's think what historic times these are, though.
Right now, we say this is the worst economy in the last 50 years, the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
But somewhere down the road, long after we have all perspired, future generations will say, my God, this is the worst economy since Barack Obama.
If we're lucky.
Martha, Winchester, Virginia, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Rush Limbaugh, congratulations on your marriage.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hey, you have done something that is so brilliant.
You have finally brought light to the thing that I've been thinking about for years.
He's not a Keynesian or Keynesian economist.
I'll get it right.
Economist.
There you go.
He's a Jacassian theorist.
Hello?
A Jacassian theorist.
A theorist.
A Jucassian theorist.
Yes, I think that that's perfect.
Also, I know that people are going to say that you hate him because he's black and all that.
Nobody said, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, that's what they always say.
Nobody's saying I hate the guy.
I know, but.
And nobody's saying that I'm calling him a jackass because he's black.
I know.
Don't say that.
People are not saying that.
No, it's not the color of his skin.
It's the thickness of it.
That's what you need to be concerned about.
Well, I think, yeah, he's been kind of thin-skinned all of his life.
I don't think he's been used to being criticized.
These thin skin thin period.
Like I'm telling you folks, people, these pencil-neck geek people that look like they need to eat, there's just something not right about that.
It just, I don't know, this is just me.
Yeah, it's like Blumenthal.
I mean, these guys that, like a 14 and a half inch neck, 15, come on.
I mean, it's.
If a woman could wear your shirt and have it fit, there's something not right.
It just, I don't know.
I can't be more detailed than that.
There you have it.
El Rushbo once again demonstrating what we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
And one thing, our last caller, you know, I really think it's what you get right down to, it's not the thinness of Obama's skin.
Our problem is the thickness of his skull and how long it takes common sense to permeate the damn thing, get in there, and start roaming around with the other neutron brain energy.
It doesn't happen much.
We have one hour left of the fastest three hours of media.
▲
Export Selection