All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:25
October 7, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So Obama doesn't really know what's going on.
If he doesn't know what's going on, how come he's leaving for 12 days to India and other places two days after the election?
He'd beaten tracks out of the country.
He is abandoning the fruited plane two days after the election for 12, almost two weeks, heading over there to India.
And look at this.
Two-thirds.
Two-thirds of the American people think the stimulus was a waste.
When was the last time two-thirds of the American people agreed on anything?
This is from one of thehill.com.
Well, immigration was the last time two-thirds of, yeah.
Over two-thirds of Americans believe Obama's signature stimulus bill was a waste.
A new poll found Tuesday.
68% of Americans said they think that the Porculus bill was a waste compared to just 29% who think the money was well spent.
See, Obama knows what he's trying to do is hugely unpopular.
That's why he can't go out and campaign with any Democrat.
He can't even campaign for Ron Emmanuel in Chicago.
He's avoiding Ron Emmanuel in Chicago.
And when he has gone out and campaigned for Democrats, they've lost.
Creed deeds.
Anybody, any number of Democrats he's campaigned for have gotten a shellect.
He doesn't dare campaign for Ron Emmanuel.
And it's not because he's personally unpopular.
It's because his policies are hated.
And even so, he's not going to renounce them.
He's not going to change them.
It's his policies.
Anybody inside the Beltway who thinks Obama's unpopular for anything other than his policies are missing it?
Two-thirds of the people of this country oppose Obama's policies.
That is what's happening.
If Obama was going to change his tune out there and move to the middle, wouldn't you think he'd do it right now?
Maybe salvage Democrat control of the Congress?
We'll just have to wait and see here.
But I just, I don't think we're going to get anything other than Obama trying to sneak and trick and ramrod his agenda through despite a Republican majority in the House and in the Senate.
All right, hurricane prediction.
Been reading these reports, all the CYA going on out there.
We were right, you know.
We were right about the number of names stormed.
We were dead on the money.
We said there were going to be a whole bunch of name storms and there were going to be more.
Don't think that this was a light, inactive hurricane.
See, don't think that.
It was busy out there.
Just none of them hit us.
So they're out there in the CYA.
Here's my prediction.
By the way, and these people had to revise their predictions throughout the hurricane season, remember?
My prediction, I didn't have to revise it once.
Here it is.
I'll make a prediction.
There will be between zero and 40 storms this year.
There will be between zero and 40 to become hurricanes, between zero and 40 to become major hurricanes, and between zero and 40 that impact the United States Gulf or East Coasts, and between zero and 40 who wipe out a city.
There you have it.
My prediction is going to be more accurate than anybody else's out there.
You wait and see.
Voila, there it is, between zero and 40.
My prediction right on the money.
Nobody can dispute it.
And as I say, I did not have to revise it.
Retailers should see their best Christmas sales in four years as consumers now show some inclination to spend money despite a minimal recovery in the economy according to a series of recent forecasts.
Still, this is Reuters, by the way, still, discounters are likely to be among the most popular shops because consumers remain cautious.
Experts said the National Retail Federation forecast on Wednesday a 2.3% increase in sales in November and December, which would be the best performance since 2006.
Oh, interesting that year.
Best performance since 2006.
Bush.
When the recession began.
That's what they all want us to believe.
Consumers are still selective about what they buy and continue to focus on price, the National Retail Federation said.
Really, that's something new that consumers are selective and continue to focus on price.
As though there was some indication they weren't going to focus on price.
Had you heard that?
I had missed the story.
I missed a story where consumers used to not care what things cost.
When did that story run?
Because I haven't seen it.
It must have run because this story says that consumers are going to continue to focus on price.
High unemployment, a tepid economic recovery, have held back spending even though the recession officially ended in 2009.
The National Retail Federation president Matthew Shea said, while there might be some economists who have concluded the recession is over, it's clear most consumers don't think so.
The forecast of a 2.3% increase compares with a 0.4% increase in 2009 and a 3.9% decline in 2008.
Okay, so here we have 10%, 17% unemployment.
We have stories about people not spending money throughout this whole year.
That's why there's no economic activity going on and no consuming going on out there.
And now, in the first week, October, we get a story that says it's going to be a great holiday season retail-wise.
I don't even need to look to know there was never a story like this during the Bush years.
There was never.
Every year, it was going to be a retail disaster.
And here we're in the midst of a retail disaster, a genuine economic disaster.
And now we get a story about, hey, you know what?
It's going to be great out there.
It's a great holiday season coming up.
Now, consumers are still going to focus on price.
Like I said, I missed the story where consumers had forgotten to care about what things cost.
So price-conscious consumers, see if I understand this, price-conscious consumers are going to go on a spending spree while paying attention to price with high unemployment raging.
What are they going to shop with?
Ah, we have the answer.
Ladies and gentlemen, food stamps.
They are going to be shopping with food stamps.
And the reason they're going to be doing it because Nancy Pelosi has said that food stamps are one of the greatest economic stimulus plans that we've ever had.
I have it right here.
I'm holding it in my formerly nickel fingers right here.
She's firing back at Gingrich.
Gingrich has got a letter out there that they got a record number of people on food stamps, and we need to be focusing on paychecks at a press conference in her hometown of San Francisco.
I mean, folks, we will concede here that this woman is on crack and is crazy.
Yes, I said that on Family Guy, and nobody refuted the charge.
I mean, I haven't heard anybody deny it since the show aired on Sunday night.
Pelosi explained the food stamp program's multiplier effect.
The amount of money generated in a local economy as a result of the subsidy far exceeds the nearly $60 billion spent this year by the feds and is a surefire way to stimulate the economy.
For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture says even higher than that at $1.84 for every dollar food stamp.
I don't know how it's possible, but they're saying it.
This is, of course, she's on crack.
It's the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance.
The biggest.
Well, if that's the case, ladies and gentlemen, I mean, if Pelosi's right, and food stamps and unemployment are the most bang for the buck when it comes to stimulating the United States economy, then the economy should be stimulated like never before since we have more people on food stamps than ever before, and unemployment is as high as it's been in recent years.
This economy ought to be overheating for crying out loud.
A multiplier for every dollar spent in health, in food stamps, it puts a buck seventy-nine.
It puts a dollar seventy-nine.
What kind of currency is this?
Where can I start trading in food stamps?
I can't get this deal in the stock market.
I can't get this in my municipal bonds.
I want to start trading in food stamps.
Black market food stamps.
Damn right, I want to buy these things at below face value because look at the profit I could make.
Shazam, folks, this is a me.
So that's how the retail experts see a rosier holiday season, more food stamps.
Now, in New York, you need to be warned.
Mayor Bloomberg, who clearly has body image issues, I mean, let's be honest about this.
And somebody who ought to have body image issues is that pencil neck geek up in Connecticut bloomin' fall.
But anyway, they are going to demand that food stamps not be used, that retailers not redeem them for sugary soft drinks.
Now, you know what's going to happen?
The New York food stamp crowd says, okay, fine, yo, fine, dude.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to take your food stamps and we're going to go buy sugar.
And then we're going to pour the sugar into our Coke and our Pepsi.
That's what they're going to do.
If they want sugar in their soft drinks, they're going to get it and they're going to get it with food stamps.
Now, one more thing here on this.
Retail experts see rosier holiday season.
This was yesterday at 12.09.
This story is the 7th, 24 hours old, basically.
But yet the New York Times published a story an hour and a half later, October 6th at 2.47 a.m.
The Reuters story is 12.09 a.m., very, very late on Tuesday night, Wednesday morning.
Prospects continue to dim for holiday retail sales.
So here are the two headlines.
Reuters, retail experts see rosier holiday season.
An hour and a half later, New York Times, prospects continue to dim for holiday retail jobs.
As the economy sputters, prospects are dimming for unemployed workers who are banking on a seasonal retail job to carry them through the holidays.
After a disappointing back to scrool season, many retailers say they intend to barely increase their seasonal jobs from last year when hiring was among the lowest in the 14 years tracked by the National Retail Federation.
So the National Retail Federation is people can be spinning like crazy, but not enough for us to go out and hire seasonal workers to deal with the onslaught of traffic from price-conscious consumers, first time in a long time for that,
using food stamps to stimulate the economy during this holiday season of 10.1% unemployment with the president leaving the country after the election for 12 days after losing the House and probably the Senate.
Hunky Dory, everything's fine out there, folks.
Not a care in the world.
Ha.
How are you?
Nice to have you, Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
New York Times has a story, which I just, I, again, have to laugh at because I don't believe it.
The story is that the regime lied about the oil being spilled into the Gulf, that the regime did not tell us how much, that they downgraded, they de-emphasized it, that much, much, much more oil was spilling into the Gulf than the regime admitted.
In other words, the regime lied.
Now, I forget who did the report that the Times published.
Doesn't matter.
I don't, like everything else in the Times, I disagree with it.
We said almost from the beginning the spill wasn't nearly as bad as the administration said for crying out loud.
How can the Times do this?
Do they think we not have memories?
When the spill happened, Obama sent SWAT teams down there.
He sent Big Sis down there.
He sent a whole Carol Browner, all kinds of people down there.
And they started warning about oil splashing up on the beaches.
We got warnings about all the dead pelicans and all the dead fish.
Oh, it was horrible.
I mean, it was so bad we had to shut down all drilling in the Gulf, which, by the way, is still shut down.
And it was I, El Rushball, along with this CEO of BP, was, you know, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the water volume of the Gulf of Mexico.
It's not that much.
And now they can't find any.
They're having to tell us, yeah, there's a giant plume out there, Limbaugh.
It's underneath the surface.
Can't see it, but it's out there.
And we know it's out there, and it's just causing all kinds of havoc.
But they didn't play down the oil.
Who thought they played down the oil spill as it was happening?
They didn't.
They played it up as an excuse to stop offshore drilling.
And they were trying to pass cap and tax while this was going on.
This was a disaster they loved.
They couldn't wait to expand on this disaster, this crisis.
And now there's a report out that the regime lied About the amount of oil coming out, that it was far, far, far worse.
The regime did not want us to know how bad it really was because the regime didn't want us to know how ineffective they were in dealing with it.
What a crock.
There's more crock in the news today than usual.
And every day, the whole cycle is a crock.
I mean, from the multiplier effect of food stamps to the conflicting news on retail spending and jobs in the holiday season.
You remember back September 2008, gasoline prices rose to four bucks a gallon.
And then we had the near collapse of the financial system.
McCain was leading in the polls when all this was going on.
And McCain suspended a campaign to go back to deal with the crisis, and that was it.
We had the two bailouts, then we had the auto bailout.
Gasoline price rising to $4 or more, depending on where you were in the country per gallon, just in time for the election.
Now, stick with me on this.
That helped crash the economy.
I mean, the price jumped a buck and a half seemingly overnight.
That percentage increased that quickly.
It affected people's driving, spending habits, contributed to the economic crash and slowdown under Bush's watch.
See, all this happened in September under Bush's watch.
Now that the midterms are looming, they're less than a month away.
The Democrats are in power.
As I look at the drudge report, oil is heading way back to $85 a barrel.
Oil's up to $85 and climbing up, ladies and gentlemen.
The gasoline price pretty much holding steady.
Even though we had the BP spill, the Obama drilling moratorium, and a thousand other reasons for prices to skyrocket.
Yet they're holding steady here.
Right before the midterm elections.
I'm just saying.
All right, we go to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting, starting my adopted hometown of Sacramento.
Jeff, great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, how you doing today?
Very well.
Thank you.
You know, I've been listening to you since you've been in Sacramento.
That's over 20 years.
I'm 41 now, and that was back when I was 16 years old.
Wow, that was 1984.
So you were talking 26 years.
Exactly.
Yep, yep.
That's a generation.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
And I've learned a lot from you.
Thank you.
You've helped me through the years, let me tell you.
Thank you very much, sir.
And also, also, real quick, we had the same anniversary date.
I got married on the same day as you.
I want to give a shout out to Stacey at Roseville Safe Heart Dispatch.
I love you, babe.
Anyways, and congratulations to you on your wedding rush.
You bet.
Thank you.
What I call for is you confused me this morning when you're talking about the health care because you told us, we were told specifically that companies such as McDonald's and Burger King we needed to pass this because those companies were greedy and didn't have health care for their part-time employees.
Right.
And now we're being told that they need an exemption to, I guess, continue doing what they were accused of not doing all along.
That's a brilliant point.
This is evidence of what can happen to your brain with steady exposure to this program.
You are right on the money.
Because during this whole healthcare debate, have we not heard what a bunch of rotten SOBs McDonald's are?
And Jack's in the box.
And Arby's all around.
He's flipper job.
They don't even provide health coverage and health insurance for employees.
And now we learn that in order for them to continue to provide health coverage, which we were told they weren't providing, health insurance, they need an exemption.
They need a pardon.
They need to be allowed to break and violate Obamacare.
Great point, Jeff, and we will be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, a renowned international scientist, in fact, our official EIB climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, has asked me for my hurricane prediction for 2011.
Even though the, I mean, technically the 2010 hurricane season isn't over until November 30th.
Yeah, November 30th.
It's a turtle light to go back on November 1st.
I always get the end of hurricane season and turtleite season confused.
But now I got it.
Even though hurricane season is still going on, Dr. Spencer has asked that I predict for 2011, and he wants me also to factor in a possible La Niña or El Niño or El Neutral.
Those conditions in the Pacific and in the tropics, Dr. Spencer's asked for a long-range forecast incorporating all of these variables.
La Niña, El Niño, El Neutral.
And here it is.
I'll make a prediction.
There will be between zero and 40 storms this year.
There will be between zero and 40 to become hurricanes, between zero and 40 to become major hurricanes, and between zero and 40 that impact the United States Gulf or East Coasts, and between zero and 40 who wipe out a city.
There you have it.
My prediction is going to be more accurate than anybody else's out there.
You wait and see.
My prediction for the 2011 hurricane season, the first out, by the way, with my prediction, and probably a prediction made with more confidence than anybody else's prediction, which won't come until next spring.
Again, another shining example of being on the cutting edge.
You'll learn about everything here first.
This McDonald's health bill waiver, I still can't get over this, especially when you stop, when we first heard about this, we first heard about it.
Remember, the White House put out a story that McDonald's was lying.
Remember that?
White House puts out a story that the McDonald's memo, internal memo, to employees, you might lose your health coverage here.
We have to be held accountable to the law.
Man, they jumped right to a White House.
Said, that's a lie.
That's not true.
And it turned out to be true.
In fact, the waivers were already underway when the White House was denying that there were going to be waivers.
Also, an interesting email.
A guy sends me his opinion on why the Democrats are not panicking over their upcoming laws.
You know, the last couple of days, we've had people call here and say, Rush, you know everything.
How come the Democrats aren't panicked?
I mean, everywhere you look, they're going to get shellacked and they don't seem to care.
And I have answered, as you've heard, well, Regis, one of the subscribers at Rush 24-7, says it this way.
Rush, here's why they're not panicked.
For two days, the lack of Democrat panic about an upcoming electoral disaster has been mentioned on your show.
Why would they panic?
Let's look at this as a football game.
The Republicans held the ball for 12 years.
They slowly moved down the field.
They got to the red zone, failed to score a single touchdown.
They just kicked a field goal from the five-yard line.
The Democrats, by comparison, when they got the ball through a Hail Mary on first down, scored a touchdown, made a two-point conversion, recovered the ensuing kickoff, had a successful onside kick, and now are throwing more touchdowns, three touchdowns and two-point conversions, in about 90 seconds.
The Republicans matriculated a ball for 12 years to a field goal, meaning Bush won and Bush two.
But Obama in a year and a half has run the score up to 45 to 3.
And the Republicans are already signaling when they get the ball back, they don't think they can score.
May play ball control again for a couple of years.
So why would the Democrats panic?
They got a 45-3 lead.
The Republicans are already saying, yeah, we're going to get the ball back, but we're going to just try to hold on to it for a little while.
So if you look at it, for example, this is really a good analogy.
If you forget the four-year cycle, imagine your team's in the Super Bowl, and in the third quarter, your team's up 45-3.
Are you really worried?
If they score a couple touchdowns, are you really worried?
No, because they're not going to overtake you.
That's a pretty good analogy.
I like it.
Well, I want to share it with you.
Brian in Albany, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Rush, hello.
You are the most intuitive man on the planet, so I have two questions.
Yes, sir.
Do you feel with your intuition that Boehner and McConnell have the conviction to repeal Obamacare, even if we win the House and Senate?
Here's what I actually think: I think that they are frightened that all of us are expecting them to repeal it.
And they know they can't because they don't have the votes to override a veto.
So they are frightened that we think they are going to have much more control of the government than they actually will.
They are hoping we will be patient until the 2012 election until Obama is hopefully defeated.
They are hoping that we understand that even with big victories, there's not a whole lot we can do except maybe stop or put on the brakes the Obama agenda because they don't have the White House.
That is what my intuition tells me about where they are.
I agree.
And my other question is: intuitively speaking, do you feel that Obama himself wants private industry to no longer be able to afford to provide health care, so it will be a single-payer system?
Yes.
I think your audience understands that.
You've implied that, but do we need to understand that?
Well, see, that kind of frustrates me because for a year and a half, I thought I've made this pretty clear that the whole point of everything in the health care bill is to price private sector insurance companies out of business, leaving only one place to go, and that is the federal government.
Obama himself, we've played the sound bites of Obama back in 2003 saying we're not going to get the single payer overnight.
It may take 15 years, may take a while.
We've played all these soundbites.
We're going to have to do this piecemeal and get to the point where people will go to the federal government as last resort because Obama knows people don't want to really have to go to the government for the health care or their insurance.
Only the people he's convinced it's going to be free are going to do that.
So I think we've had a number of insurance salespeople and executives on this program call and update people on what the status of the business is at various stages of the implementation of Obamacare.
So I think we've been pretty clear, but if I need to say it again and again and again, I will.
The McDonald's thing, these waivers is proof positive.
If there weren't an election year, if this were not an election year, there wouldn't be any waivers, and these people would lose their coverage.
It's just that simple.
30 companies would not get waivers, and those employees would lose coverage.
They would not have health insurance, and they would be clamoring.
And somehow it would be the Republicans' fault.
And there would be a crisis.
There would be an emergency.
How are we going to get them coverage?
Well, I guess we're going to have to speed up the federal exchanges would be the answer, as the secretary may determine.
In this case, the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.
Brief time out.
Sit tight.
Much more straight ahead.
Fastest three hours in media roll on.
Hey, welcome back.
I am your guiding light, Rushlin Boy with talent on loan from God.
Look at the way Obama's going to get to national health care single payer is by basically being patient, having people demand it because it's all there's going to be.
He's going to do the same thing with coal.
He's not going to ban coal.
He's not going to say coal's illegal.
He's just, as he promised, gonna make it a losing proposition to go into the coal business.
It's gonna cost you an arm and a leg if you want to have a coal-fired plant.
You want to do it, go right ahead, but you're gonna be paying me taxes like you can't believe you're not gonna make a dime and you're gonna lose millions doing, but go ahead if you want to.
That's how he's going to do it.
Here's the guy asked me, do you think the, what's your intuition on the Republicans?
And I think that, you know, they're hoping we realize that they don't have the power to control the government even after the election because they're not going to hold a White House.
One of the things that I think professional politicians are misunderstanding about this guy, one of the reasons I think I do understand him, everybody in Washington is a professional politician.
And a professional in anything thinks a certain way.
A professional politician does not think outside the box.
Obama is not a professional politician.
Obama is a professional agitator.
He is a professional revolutionary.
He is a professional organizer.
His handbook is Saul Ilinsky, not whatever handbook inside the Beltway politicians use in their business.
Clinton was a professional politician.
Holding on to power, keeping his job was always number one, so that Hillary could then inherit his power.
Obama doesn't think that way.
He's not oriented to holding on to power.
His mode right now is destruction.
His mode, he wants to be an historic figure.
He wants to rule the world after he has worked his quote-unquote magic here in the United States.
He wants to be asked to be Secretary General or the guy that the UFO people want to meet when they land.
You know, take me to your leader.
He wants to be that guy.
Lincoln didn't think he would be reelected.
He didn't care.
And Obama sees himself as a new Lincoln.
You have to think outside the box.
You cannot, in analyzing Obama, you can't put him in the professional politician box and predict what he's going to do.
To understand Obama, to predict what he's going to do, predict what he's going to do, you have to understand he's not a professional politician.
He's got other objectives than professional politicians.
And until our guys inside the belt way understand that, until they're able to understand that Obama's not got the desires of the traditional political politician, professional politician, they're not going to understand what's happening.
Who's next?
Marty in San Antonio, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Raj.
How are you today?
Very well, thank you.
Good.
I've been a fan for going back like 15 years since the current years.
God bless you.
I know.
And guess what?
I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Are you, really?
I am born and raised.
Been a Steeler fan since I could walk.
But what I wanted to ask you about was basically what I call is the relevancy of Congress.
Yes.
And to me, that means, and I think a lot of people don't think about that, and that is they're hoping that we take the Congress and the Senate back.
And let's say that we do.
So then what happens?
They have all these expectations.
And you were giving an example just before, you know, with what you were just saying.
Let me give the example of like the student loans.
The financial, the financial purse strings are held in Congress's hands.
And with this Democratic Congress, they just gave that power away.
Right.
And I know that a lot of times Congress has given away their power.
That goes back to, I believe, Nixon, if not before then.
And that has happened in many administrations.
So what I mean by that is, even if we do take both houses back, with Obama doing the czars and a lot of the power being given to them, even if we do take it back, what is the relevancy of Congress going to be?
That totally depends on what the Congress wants to make of itself.
The Constitution is the Constitution.
And if the Republicans who then own Congress want to hold Obama's feet and everybody else to the Constitution, then their powers will be theirs.
Even if Obama has usurped them, as you say with these czars and everything else, it just depends on what they want to do.
It depends on what their objectives are.
The House controls the money.
Obama still doesn't have control of that.
The House still, all spending bills, all tax bills still originate in the House of Representatives.
I mean, some people have asked me, well, Rush, couldn't they defund, not pay for, some of Obama's health care provisions?
Yeah, they could.
Will they?
Don't know if they if they try that.
Can you imagine?
This is nothing's going to change in this regard.
The Democrats and the media are going to be all over them.
They're going to be the biggest baby killers.
They're going to be starving more kids.
They're going to be school lunch plan cuts all over again.
You're going to hear Social Security.
Republicans want to cut your Social Security, want to kick you out of your house.
All of that's coming.
All that's coming.
So it just depends on what their own agenda is and what their medal is.
They're not going to be irrelevant.
I mean, Obama still had to go to them to get the spending for the stimulus bill.
The Democrats gave it to him because in the same party.
So it's all, I don't care what question I am asked about this.
What do I think they're going to do with health care?
Are they going to repeal it?
Are they going to be relevant or what have you?
It all is up to them.
We have a constitution.
We're going to hold the president's feet to it.
Are we going to start investigating some of this stuff that's happening?
Are we going to investigate the money going to the czars and what they're doing with it?
I mean, if Daryl Issa wants, he can go to town on this.
There could be endless investigation.
It just depends what they want to do with it and what they think their mandate is after they win the election.
Which they're always looking forward to the next one, by the way.
So sit tight back after headline on the Drudge Report: Spitzer as boring on TV as he was in bed, madam.
Spitzer's call girl is out there saying he's as boring on TV as he was in.
Can you imagine being Mrs. Spitzer?
▲
Export Selection