All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:18
November 9, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And we are happy, as we always have been, to welcome back to the program President George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush, welcome back, and thank you for giving us some time today, sir.
Rush, thank you.
I'm honored to be giving this, to talking to you about this new book I just released.
How many times a day in the last two years have you heard people tell you they miss you?
Well, every time they do, I'm flattered, and I appreciate it very much.
There's a big billboard between Dallas and Waco that says that, and it makes a guy feel good.
And I appreciate it.
I signed books today in Dallas, and quite a few people went by and said that.
It's a very kind thing for people to say.
Well, I'm sure they mean it.
Now, what's your take on the election?
This is historic.
Republicans have not won this many seats in the House, I think, since the 1930s.
This election goes deep.
State legislatures, governorships, this was big.
What's your take?
Well, you might remember I was president during two off-year elections.
In 2002, we picked up seats.
In 06, we lost seats.
So I'm familiar with both ends of off-year elections.
And in 06, people were disgruntled.
And, you know, in the book, I point out that people were kind of tired of me.
Iraq War I looking good in the fall of 06.
But people are also tired of sex scandals and bridges to nowhere and the failure to reform Social Security, for example.
And they showed up and said, wait a minute, we're unsatisfied.
And that's what happened again here.
It was a big election, and people asked me about it.
And look, I'm not going to try to dissect all the election, but I do appreciate the fact that democracy functions.
And when people are frustrated, they show up.
And in this case, they had a huge influence.
But what's it like?
I mean, you just said people were tired of you in 2006.
What's it like to sit in the Oval Office or wherever you happen to be as president and believe that people are tired of you?
And do you want to do anything about that?
Well, in my case, I wasn't going to compromise principle, nor was I going to abandon the mission in Iraq.
And so in the fall of 2006, as these elections were approaching, I was in the process of deciding to put more troops into Iraq.
And, you know, sometimes if you're president and people are tired of you, you just have to soldier on.
I was convinced we could succeed in Iraq, and I knew failure in Iraq would be catastrophic, and success could be transformative.
And so on this particular issue, I said, I'm going to do what I think is right.
And I spent quite a bit of time in the book writing about that.
We noted at the time that there were some vicious attacks against your Iraq policy, against you personally.
And you never responded in kind, in a political sense, to what were political attacks.
And in my lifetime, I don't recall a political party ever opposing their own country at war, seeking a defeat, as the Democrats seemed to.
And Harry Reid was out there, Mr. President.
This war is lost.
Yes, I chronicle that moment, and I didn't like it then.
I don't like hearing it now because as a leader in the Senate, I felt it was an irresponsible act, irresponsible statement to say to a mother or a loved one, your child or your loved one is headed into a losing situation.
You can disagree with the policy, disagree with whether we should work to establish democracy in Iraq after we liberated it.
But to condemn soldiers heading into mission to a lost cause is just inexcusable as far as I was concerned.
Why didn't you do more about it?
Why didn't you comment more about it at the time?
I mean, I asked you once, and you said that you didn't want to sully the office of the presidency by descending to base political level.
But I mean, this was not something based politics.
This was keeping the country safe.
Well, I understand that.
But on the other hand, I do believe in the institution of the presidency, and I didn't think it was right then.
I still don't think it's right to engage in name-calling if you're the president of the United States.
And I was focused on the mission, as were the troops.
And because of their bravery and sacrifice, the situation turned around shortly after that statement.
I've discussed this with other people in my administration.
When they call me a liar, should I have called them names?
And my attitude was no then, obviously, and I still feel very strongly that's the way a president ought to conduct himself.
Well, some of the people in your administration, Carl Rove, have said in hindsight that they think maybe Carl, speaking for himself, certainly other people in the administration should have done more to defend you and the administration against these attacks because these attacks against you are attacks against your voters, attacks against the American people who support the United States at war.
That's right.
Now, Carl feels that way.
I read his book and recommend it.
He'll be happy for me to hear.
And, yeah, I mean, Carl felt like we should have punched back harder.
I can't remember if he was referring to I should have punched back harder or we should have punched back harder.
I wasn't going to punch back because, again, I think the office of the presidency is precious.
It's an institution that needs to be strengthened.
And getting into a verbal mudfight with people just, in my judgment, demeans the office.
And so I chose not to do that.
Okay, demeans the office.
It hasn't stopped.
By this definition, the office is being demeaned today.
I mean, you are being blamed for the economy today.
The current occupant constantly runs around saying, I inherited this mess from you.
Did you ever say you inherited a terrorism crisis from President Clinton or an economic?
I don't know how to do that.
Each president has his own tactics.
And I've been around politics long enough to know how it works.
And so I've chosen not to engage this way.
During my presidency or in my post-presidency.
Look, I like not being in the news.
It's a little ironic since I'm talking to one of the most widely listened people in America.
I'm the most widely listened person in America.
But I'm very comfortable being submerged, as I say, and I'm emerging because I want people to read this book, frankly, and I think it'll give people an interesting perspective about what it was like to be president and how you make decisions in a complex environment.
And, you know, once this book is finished, I'm going back to as normal a life as possible, promoting freedom and marketplace and accountability in schools and playing golf with people like you.
Anytime.
I hear your game's getting better now that you've gotten married.
Yeah, because I've got less time to play, and the less time I play, the better I seem to get.
Now, look, one thing about the predecessor and so forth.
I mean, you were president of the United States.
You were the leader of the country.
You were elected twice by the people of this country on substantive issues.
Now we find ourselves in a really challenging economic time, and it is being said that you drove the economy in the ditch.
You were behind the wheel in the car.
Now, Mr. President, the people we can't relate to being president.
We can only try to understand it.
And what we do if we hear ourselves being blamed for things that we had nothing to do with, our tendency would be to respond to it to try to correct the record.
But in your book, you steer clear.
Well, on this issue, I do steer clear because I remind the reader that on the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw a problem and went to Congress and said, look, this is a group of enterprises that have got an implicit government guarantee, and they're taking risky stances.
And therefore, we ought to regulate them.
If they've got a government implicit guarantee, there ought to be some sense of regulation to make sure they don't misuse that guarantee.
And I make it clear in the book what happened, and that is that powerful forces in Congress resisted that reform.
If those reforms had taken place in 2003, it's hard to predict whether or not this crisis would have occurred.
But I'm comfortable in telling the reader and comfortable that history will judge that we try to do something about it.
And, you know, eventually the truth wins out.
And this book's an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.
Is that your faith speaking that the truth will out?
Do I think that?
Yeah, I do.
I think, look, I remember when Ronald Reagan left office.
Frankly, you're old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan left office.
Yeah, I am.
And, you know, Dant's warmonger, all the names he was being called.
And at the time of his burial, he was being viewed as a superb president, and rightly so.
If you had a to-do-over, you were talking about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.
If you had it to-do-over, would you do the TARP bailout?
Yeah, I would have.
What were you told about that?
What did they tell you that made it?
We were headed for a second depression.
You know, they didn't say quite that, you know, a little more nuanced than that, but it's if you don't do something big, we could see a second depression or depression bigger than the second depression.
And, you know, if you're the president, you don't have time to gamble.
And I didn't like using taxpayers' money to bail out the people that got us in trouble.
I didn't like it at all.
But when you're president, you get faced with stark choices.
And I couldn't have lived with myself had the country gone into a deep depression.
And people's lives would have been affected and people thrown out of work.
And there's a lot of people not in work today, and all of us are concerned about that.
But the situation could have been a lot worse.
Well, you talked about the people that got us into trouble.
Some people think it wasn't Wall Street by themselves.
Some people think it was the Democrat Party.
You talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the whole subprime mortgage mess.
I mean, that was a brainchild of the Democrats.
Yeah, that's right.
But this is a we bailed the Democrats out of a problem, too, and they continue to this day to blame you and the Republicans for it.
Although I don't think they're getting away with it any longer.
The election returns, I think, signaled that.
We're talking with former President Bush.
We have to take a brief time out.
His new book, Decision Points, published today.
Back with more right after this.
All right, we're back with President George W. Bush.
The new book decision points out today.
Mr. President, the softball questions are over.
Now we move in.
Are you using a teleprompter on your book tour?
No.
I just finished, actually, you don't need a teleprompter when you sit and sign books.
And I just finished signing, I think, like 2,400 books here in Dallas.
2,400 books.
Yeah.
People seem interested.
I hope not only supporters, but critics read the book.
I just want people to understand what it was like.
Well, you said that you enjoy being out of the news.
I can help you.
Yeah, get back in it or stay out of it.
No, just keep telling the truth, and they'll ignore you.
Look, your tax cuts are set to expire the end of this year.
What should happen?
Well, if you're interested, if one is interested in job creation, it is important to understand that 70% of new jobs are created by small businesses.
And many small businesses pay personal income tax because they're subchapter S or limited partnerships.
And if those rates go up on small businesses, it'll be harder to create jobs.
So I think you ought to keep them low.
All right.
What about the Arizona immigration law?
What's your thoughts on that?
My thought on that is now, you see, you're trying to get me to make news.
I don't want to make news.
I want to sell books, of course.
Well, you can do both at the same time.
I'm an expert at it.
I think the federal government ought to have a comprehensive immigration law.
And the fact there isn't one caused Arizona to react.
And as you know, I laid out a comprehensive plan that I believed would work when I was president.
I still believe it'll work.
And in the book, I talk about that decision to try to get legislation passed.
What was the objective of that legislation?
What were you trying to accomplish with your comprehensive immigration reform?
Because many people thought it was amnesty, and that's why they opposed it.
No, I know.
And that's what happens a lot of times.
These issues get labeled, and people react poorly.
I couldn't have said it more plainly.
I was against amnesty.
And I don't know many people who are for amnesty when it came to time to comprehensive reform.
I'm sure there's some.
But all that would do, if you granted amnesty, would encourage the next wave to come.
I was trying to basically recognize that our economy required immigrants to work.
I mean, there's a lot of jobs Americans won't do, and therefore there needed to be an orderly, legal way for people to come and work on a temporary basis.
And that if you had paid your taxes and been here for a while and were a good citizen, you had a chance to become a citizen, but you had to get at the back of the line.
And so it was a plan that I felt addressed the issue in a good way.
There is no plan.
Obviously, there's no plan, a comprehensive plan yet, and therefore states like Arizona reacted.
The politics of it, though, many people feared the Democrats simply wanted to register all these people as new Democrat voters.
They weren't concerned about any compassion.
They weren't concerned about labor markets or any of that.
They just saw an avenue for more Democrat votes and registration.
And when Republicans are going along with it, people are pulling their hair out saying, why do we want to help the Democrats in their political efforts?
No, I know, I know.
Look, a lot of people view things through a political lens.
I thought it was good policy, though.
And not all Democrats were for it on Capitol Hill either, I might add.
Anyway, it's still an issue, and it needs to be solved at some point in time.
Tea Party, what's your reaction?
Well, I think that democracy works, and people came frustrated, showed up, and participated in the process.
To me, that's healthy when people participate in democracy.
The worst thing that can happen in our system is people are frustrated and don't participate.
But a lot of people participated.
I also watched the Tea Party tight movement in 1992, so this is nothing new for me.
Remember when there was a lot of frustration in the political system, and there was a third-party candidate who ran for president in 92, Ross Perot, and I believe it affected the election when it came time to my dad's reelection, but there was a lot of anxiety in the system then as well.
It is healthy for our society if people feel anxiety and frustration that they participate, that they show up.
And what's really unhealthy is if there's frustration and people do nothing.
And, you know, so it was a very interesting political year.
I want to give you a chance to comment on something.
There are stories going around that do not quote you, that quote, associates or friends, saying that you are telling them that Sarah Palin was a bad choice by Senator McCain to be vice president and that she had never said that, of course, nor have I read it about it.
I'm not going to comment on anybody who might be running for president, but that's what happens in today's world is blogosphere.
People get to hide behind some code name or something.
They toss out a gossip and rumor and floats around the internet.
I never said that, never would have said that.
What do you want people to know about you and your presidency that they don't know?
What's in this book that you think will surprise people?
Oh, gosh, I think it'll surprise people that I deliberated long and hard about a lot of issues that are weighed, different people's opinions, that I was very deliberate when it came time to committing our troops.
I tried to give diplomacy a chance.
I think people will learn that I've got a decent sense of humor, and I hope they already know that I've got a set of values I wouldn't trade out for politics.
And I hope they know that I was honored to serve our country, that I really love America.
And to be the president of a country you love is a huge honor.
Privatizing Social Security.
I meant to ask you this when you mentioned it earlier.
This is one of your hallmarks of the second term.
You tried to get this done.
It's always been said the third rail.
Even today, with your book coming out, the Democrats are attacking you on this.
You didn't want to reform the whole thing.
You just wanted to give people a stake in it.
Yeah, here's, look, that's a code word, privatization.
That's obviously a poll-tested word.
And so all I said was younger workers ought to have a chance to set aside some of their money in an account that earns a better rate of return than their money in the Social Security Trust Fund.
And why I thought that was important is, one, it's voluntary.
Secondly, it'll give a waitress in a restaurant a chance to own an asset, an asset that he or she can pass on, or she, in this case, can pass on to her families.
I mean, there's a lot of people in our society who have no assets.
And I felt like this would be a substantive reform that would be positive.
And, of course, you know, by having a defined contribution plan, as opposed to a defined benefit plan, you're taking power away from people in Washington, and that created a lot of angst.
And one of these days, people are going to reform Social Security.
And, you know, I was pleased to lay out a solution.
Former President Bush, it's great to have you on the program.
It always is.
Good luck with the book.
You've got a busy couple of months ahead of you with this, taking you through the Christmas season with it.
And I thank you for your time here.
It's always a pleasure to have you with us.
Rush, thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate your time.
You bet.
President Bush is on the phone with us from Texas, and he does say that countless people miss him, which we knew would be the case.
Thanks again for your time, sir.
We will be back and continue.
Your phone calls are next on the EIB network right after this.
And your turn now as we go back to the phones on the Rush Limbaugh Project.
We're back.
We haven't taken a call yet, right, Snowdley?
So up first today is Bart in Tucson.
Bart, welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Well, thank you for taking my call, Rush.
I think this QE2 is completely at Obama's behest, and it further demonstrates your point that he's damaging the country and the economy purposefully.
Well, we're trying to monetize our debt.
We're trying to get out of our debt by inflating our debt.
The CHICOMs hate it.
The Germans hate it.
They all have had experience with runaway inflation.
They know what it does.
They are worried about the inflationary aspects of this.
You might even say we're not even really printing money here, although technically we are.
But what this is doing is devaluing the dollar, and commodity prices are going up.
Gasoline prices are going up.
It's going to be a mess heading into the holiday season.
And you think that the regime is doing this on purpose at the Federal Reserve is doing this at the behest of Obama.
Yes, yes.
Because just anybody with any rudimentary economics knowledge knows that this causes inflation and that it's the kiss of death.
Well, it is for some people.
Economics is a strange thing because while some people get hammered, some people benefit really well, no matter what happens.
I remember when the domestic oil price plummeted back in the 80s, so much so that a bunch of domestic oil producers had to plug their wells.
I mean, shut them down forever.
Well, the consumer made out like a bandit the price of gasoline fell, but the retail producers and the wholesalers did not benefit at all.
It's always a trade-off, but this is more stimulus.
It hasn't worked prior to this.
There's no evidence to suggest this is going to work.
They're out there asking Volcker, well, what would you do about unemployment?
I don't think there's anything we can do about unemployment.
I think it's going to be this way for at least a year.
Yesterday, the news was filled with stories about the fact that 9.5%, 10% unemployment now is the new norm.
Well, people didn't vote for a new norm.
They didn't vote for this last Tuesday.
This is precisely what this election was all about.
People do not want a Europeanized, socialized country.
They don't want an America in decline.
This is not what America is all about.
And once they figure out that that's where this direction is taking us, they are opposed to it.
And it's simple.
It is what it is.
And that's why Obama's out of the country doing all of this.
As I said yesterday, there's more to this than meets the eye.
This kind of drubbing and shellacking, this is not a whole hum reaction.
The Democrats trying to make you think, it's no big deal.
I mean, it's a temporary thing.
We'll be back.
It was just marketing and packaging.
This could lead to Democrat extinction at levels they haven't seen before.
All the governorships that have transpired here, they changed places, and the state legislatures, the chance now to redraw congressional districts and ace Democrats out.
They know it.
They know full well.
And they also know that Obama doesn't care.
They also know that Obama was fine and dandy with Democrats falling on their sword for him.
Rebecca in Orrington, Maine, you're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Well, thank you for having me.
I had the great honor of meeting with President Bush in summer of 2007 as a military mom.
I urged him at that time to have Congress really stand up about what the Democrats were doing, saying the war was lost and putting a lot of pressure on people not to fund the troops.
In retrospect, what he did was the right thing.
He didn't bring the fray down to their level with people just saying the most outrageous things and let the military families, as a matter of fact, speak up.
Yeah, I've asked him this question.
I can't tell you how many times, personally, privately, and his answer has never wavered.
And it's tough for me.
I try to put myself in his shoes.
Try to imagine myself president of the United States.
And in my mind, I'm doing everything I'm doing for the benefit of this country.
If it's a terror attack that I'm responding to with military policy, it's to keep the country safe.
If I'm coming up with an economic policy, social security reform, it is to benefit the people of this country.
And to have that maligned, to be personally maligned, I could not, if I were inclined not to sell at the office and not respond to it personally, I would not silence my administration.
I would turn them loose.
It's too serious.
It matters too much.
I would make sure the people that voted for me understood that they had a leader.
But he was hell-bent on not sullying the office of the presidents.
He told me that I can't tell you how many times.
And to this day, it's tough for me to understand.
Even now, even now, we've got an economy unlike any since the Great Depression.
He's being blamed for it.
The Democrat Party and the media are blaming him.
And he's content to let long-term history be the judge of this.
Now, I know that his faith in God is what gives him the comfort and the confidence to do this, but I would not be able to stand mute about it like he is.
It was hard for me to understand at the time, but in retrospect, it was probably the right thing.
Why do you think that?
I mean, you're a military mom, you said, but why do you think that?
I think the media was putting us in such a tight squeeze at the time and trying to drag things into the gutter as much as they could that I think that standing out of the gutter and really just letting things play out and letting us speak out, you know, the families that were having to deal with this, was the better thing to do.
Yeah, but see, everything has a consequence.
His reticence to treat them politically might have led to the Democrat Congress in 2007.
It might be the reason we've got Obama.
And that's Congress's fault in a way.
Yes, they should have done more.
And the media really, you know, we have to find a better way to stand up to them.
I put a large part of this at their back door.
Well, I have become an expert in dealing with the media.
That's not a problem.
I just try to put myself in his shoes.
And I've had people tell me when I share this story, well, you don't defend yourself when you're attacked.
You don't, you don't.
Yeah, but, you know, I'm not president of the United States.
I'm not running the country.
I don't have the power invested in me by virtue of an election.
You know, I don't respond to critics because I'm too famous.
I'm just too big.
If I respond to critics, all I do is make them bigger.
All I do is elevate them.
But in the world he lives in, I mean, Congress is Congress.
You can't say that they're the equivalent of MSNBC to Fox News or something.
It's a death march in a way, or a death match.
So some people say I'm hypocritical because, you know, Rush, you don't defend yourself.
You ignore these critics yourself.
And that's very true.
But I don't think it's an apples-to-apples analogy in comparing me or anybody else in the media being attacked by little ankle biters and Chihuahua was to the kind of things presidents get.
I mean, we're talking about the country, the country's economy, the well-being of the American people, the whole position of the United States of America in the world, as opposed to the status of a talk show or a talk show host.
Anyway, as I say, I've asked him, I can't tell you how many times, and the answer is always the same.
And I've asked Rove.
And I go, why?
And you people know.
I mean, you've asked me why.
All of those personal assaults.
I mean, you remember this stuff.
Not just this war is lost, but Bush is Hitler and all this garbage.
I mean, it was personally slimeballed.
There were books on how to assassinate George W. Bush.
And the left told us, well, it's an art form.
We must understand the intellectual artistic expression in these endeavors.
No, we don't.
If some right-winger was talking about this Democrat president this way, you'd be putting him in jail.
And the answer is always the same.
The office of the presidency is way up here, and those people are down in the gutter, and I'm not taking the office of the presidency down there.
So it is what it is.
Thanks for the call.
I appreciate it, Rebecca.
You know, folks, 12 people have been charged with participating in real estate transactions, real estate transactions that resulted in more than $15 million in fraudulent loans.
And again, this is in California.
Fresno County District Attorney's Office announced this yesterday.
Fraudulent loans involving 142 felony counts caused lending institutions to lose $5.7 million, led to foreclosures and short sales.
The charges against the defendants include allegations of grand theft of personal property, forgery, and identity theft.
It's happening more frequently.
Identity theft is becoming a part of almost every aspect of financial crime.
And it need not happen to you.
Life Lock can do the best job anybody can of protecting your identity.
And all you have to do is give them your social security number.
Don't give it to anybody else, but give it to them.
They have the best identity alert system going.
If somebody tries to steal your identity, they are nabbed in the process.
What will happen is you'll be minding your own business and you will get a phone call from Life Lock and they will say, you are currently trying to spend $25,000 on a watch here at Torneau on Fifth Avenue.
And you say, no, I'm not.
Well, they shut it down.
It doesn't happen.
This is the only outfit that you should use.
They do not share the information you give them with anybody else.
They don't sell it.
Some of their competitors do.
And you can save 10% off the already ridiculously low price just by mentioning my name.
Offer code Rush.
LifeLock at 800-440-4833.
Now, you might think the odds of this happening to you are so insignificant that you don't need to worry about it.
Maybe true.
But you don't want it to happen.
It's a literal nightmare trying to get yourself back once you have been stolen.
800-440-4833.
Offer code Rush.
Mind over chatter, starting a million conversations.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network.
This is Rob in Chicago.
Glad you waited, sir.
You're up.
Hello, Rush from the People's Republic of Chicago.
Oh, by the way, and happy Operation Reverse Chaos Dittos.
Is that not amazing?
It is working and did work exactly as drawn up on the board.
Rush, I did one better.
I was a Democrat election judge.
A Democrat election judge.
Yes, sir.
And that afforded you the opportunity to do what?
To keep an eye on the election.
Well, congratulations.
But let me get to my point.
Yeah, I was hoping that was going to happen.
Okay.
Okay.
To my point.
On October 16th of this year, Obama was calling for an end to the tax breaks that helped send jobs away.
This was in an AP article in the New York Post.
Now, I'm looking on Yahoo, he's announcing trade deals dismissing the outsourcing gripes.
All right, so would it be fair to say, sir, that due to the shellacking they took in the election, that now Obama is punishing the American workers for voting against him?
Well, I think he began punishing the American worker before they rejected him in the election.
I agree, sir.
Yeah, I know.
It's tough to say, folks.
I know it flows off of my lips so smoothly.
I know when I say this, it sounds fluent, fluid, cogent, coherent, but I'm telling you, it is uncomfortable as it can be to actually believe, much less say, that we've elected somebody who happily is presiding over our decline and goes over to India and practically applauds the fact that our days of dominance are behind us, are over.
I don't like thinking this.
I would love to be wrong about it, but I know I'm not.
I know my gut.
I know my instincts.
And might there be some piling on by Obama because he's been rejected?
Yeah, that's liberals.
You dare reject them.
You dare oppose them.
They will give you what for.
But this is who they are anyway, whether you vote for them, whether you vote against them.
They can never, whatever they get, it's never enough.
They're never happy.
I remember Madeline Albright lamenting the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yes, lamenting it.
The world was not properly balanced if there was only one superpower, the United States.
Balance of power was required.
There needed to be another superpower, Soviet Union, maybe the CHICOMs, to keep us on an even moral keel.
So it's nothing new, really, for a Democrat, a leftist, or a Democrat to think that America is the problem in the world, not the solution.
Just tough to accept the fact that we've elected one as president.
I read these stories and look at, I trust the foreign press, the India Times.
I mean, they make it plain as day that the president is over there happily announcing the days of American economic dominance are over, that he is happy to proclaim new competitors, the CHICOMs and the nation of India.
Now, look, I'm fine and dandy with, you know, India, if you want to know the truth about India, India did not become what it is without going capitalist.
You know, Gandhi was a big believer in socialism.
He was a believer in the caste system.
You know what the caste system was, Snirdley?
The casteists, there were 14 or 15 of them.
You were born into whatever level, you stayed there.
If you were born in the dirt poor, you stayed there.
You never were able to get out of it.
He believed in that.
India is reviving itself by virtue of capitalism.
And the CHICOMs, whether they want to admit it or not, have elements of capitalism in their growth.
Now, what are we doing?
We're cutting ourselves down to size by abandoning it.
And it isn't by accident.
It's not some quirk of fate.
From the New York Times, investigator finds no evidence that BP took shortcuts to save money.
No evidence that BP was responsible in any way for the, well, that shortcuts were responsible for the all well exploding.
And guess what?
They've also found out what happened to all of all that spilt.
▲
Export Selection