All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
December 2, 2010, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24 7 Podcast.
I'm sitting here in stunned disbelief.
Ladies and gentlemen, I just I just cannot believe.
You may not have heard this yet.
I cannot believe it's 2022 World Cup has been given to Cutter or Qatar instead of the United States.
We sent Eric Holder over there.
We sent Bill Clinton over there.
We even sent Morgan Freeman over there to lobby for the 2022 World Cup games, and we didn't get it.
Holder didn't get it, Clinton didn't get it, Morgan Freeman didn't get it.
Instead, Cutter gets it, and the Russians are gonna get some other year.
Did they not know that Morgan Freeman played Nelson Mandela in a movie about a movie about rugby?
But for crying out, wow, what more could we have done?
Well, no, Obama guaranteed loser.
That's why he didn't go.
Talk to Chicago about that.
What are you I mean, Eric Holder?
How could they disrespect Eric Holder?
Bill Clinton.
I guess you know you go to a um you go to a Middle Eastern country, um philanderer like Clinton doesn't score that many points as you would think.
And then Morgan Freeman, who played Mandela.
I mean, we folks, I don't care where you turn.
People are just stomping all over us on the world stage, this little Julian Assange guy.
But speaking of that, we now are told everybody knows where he is.
This guy, apparently he's sleeping on sofas at the home friends, various friends, various homes, various sofas.
He doesn't have a permanent place, but the UK knows where he is.
It's one of the hardest arrest warrants to present in a long, long time.
But there's a there's something happened on CNN last night.
Situation removed blitzer.
I don't understand this.
That they're wasting audio and video on this over at CNN.
This is a report on how people are pronouncing his last name.
CNN actually with a long report featuring Genie Moss.
And here's how it sounded.
Seems everyone is talking about Julian Assange these days, but not necessarily all in the same way.
The WikiLeaks founder's name is being pronounced in some most unusual ways.
Here's CNN's Genie Moss.
Most of those who get his name wrong are doing it on purpose, like Rush Limbaugh.
This is not the first leak from Julian Assange.
Well, no, that doesn't sound any different than the way Blitzer pronounced it.
Play the sound by the beginning there.
Ed seems everybody's talking about Julian Assange.
Everyone is talking about Julian Assange these days, but not necessarily all in the same way the WikiLeaks founder's name is being pronounced in some most unusual ways.
Here's CNN's Genie Muss.
Most of those who get his name wrong are doing it on purpose, like Rush Limbaugh.
This is not the first leak from Julian Assange.
I mean, it's hardly any difference.
I'm just emphasizing Assange, but this is not fundamentally different from the way Blitzer pronounced it.
Well, I wasn't pronouncing his name when I bleeped myself.
I had I was calling him a name when I had to bleep myself.
Anyway, and I had to bleep it because I used the first three letters of his name, Assange, uh in a way that still is not proper for your for family uh programming.
Uh also uh we're ladies and gentlemen, this this huge story today about the Fed and the money and where it went.
This is so convoluted on it one snerdly came in here today, you know, you know you've been saying all this time nothing's real, nothing's real.
Where did this money come from?
Where did this turns out 3.3 trillion dollars?
Where'd it come from?
And I said they printed it for all intents and purposes.
So he said nothing's real.
And I said, well, in a sense, yeah.
But then on the other hand, it's all very real in terms of ramifications and meanings.
It is so complicated and so convoluted.
I consulted a professional economist about this to uh to get assistance in in explaining this to you.
Mike Munger at Duke.
I has uh sent me a couple things here today that that uh are gonna help me to explain this to you, which we'll do in uh in in in due course.
Uh before we get to that, and that'll be one of the major focuses of the program today, that this this today is Thursday, and the Democrats in the House led by Pelosi.
Oh, and I love this.
Boehner is going to get rid of Pelosi's climate change committee.
Now, Sensenbrenner, who is on the committee, the Republican, he didn't want to get rid of the committee because he wanted to use the committee to expose the Obama administration and the Democrats in how they're utilizing this whole thing as a fraud and a hoax.
And Boehner said, no, no, no, don't worry about that.
We're gonna shut it down, and we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna put it over at their uh put you on the science committee and you can do your work over there.
We're gonna get to get rid of the committee.
Also, I I cannot believe this.
With all that's gone on, do you know that there is not a women's room off the floor of the House of Representatives?
There has not been a women's room.
Female members of Congress have had to walk a long hallway to some, you know, the nether region of the of the Capitol building to use the restroom.
The men, of course, have a restroom right off the floor.
Now, the women do have a breast pump room.
Pelosi did set up room where you go in there and breastfeed or breast pump.
But all of this time, all of this focus on equal rights, uh, all this focus on how women are being discriminated against.
Uh, and no women's room.
Now, a lot of Democrat Congresswomen could have probably used the men's room, and nobody would have said anything.
Might not have really noticed anything.
But still.
So Boehner announces that they're going to they're gonna get rid of the office of the uh architect.
No, the office of the they're gonna get rid of the parliamentarian, they're gonna move his office some other place, and they're gonna turn the office of the parliamentarian into a ladies' restroom off the floor of the House of Representatives.
And there are some leftists who are just they're mad as they can be over this, demanding what ought to be unisex bathrooms anyway.
I kid you not.
There ought to be unisex.
I've seen a political story on this.
I'll have that coming up.
Anyway, Pelosi and the Democrats and their big vote today on preserving the middle class tax cuts.
Now, this is one of the most partisan votes in the history of the United States.
Nancy Pelosi going away present, ultra partisan vote on tax policy, a vote that'll have no purpose other than to give liberals political cover, provide them with attack ads for the next election.
While the job creators have waited a year for tax policy so they can start creating more jobs.
Even the the IRS commissioner has sent Congress a letter saying, You guys, whatever you do, don't wait till next calendar year to do it.
Our computers are already set up.
If you make any changes retroactive to this year, if you don't make the changes till January, you're gonna screw up our computers, you're gonna delay people's refunds.
So the IRS guy is saying, please do whatever you're gonna do by the end of the year.
More and more Republicans are starting to come out and say he's gonna go for it, meaning Obama.
He's gonna cave.
They're not using the word uh very carefully.
Not using that word.
He's fine, yeah, he's he's we're finally getting through to him on not taxing job creators.
And that this is what Corny is saying, and Dement has said this.
And they're saying it publicly that that the end of the day, and the Democrats are angry that Obama is gonna cave.
A Democrats in in the House are livid that Obama will cave too soon.
So a um a split is taking place.
But in the midst of all of this, here you have Pelosi with this big for show only vote today on extending the Bush tax rates for the middle class.
Now, I I would describe this as bipolar partisan.
She's nuts.
There's no other way to describe her.
Bipolar partisan.
How else do you explain this?
For seven years, Pelosi and her posse have trashed the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts for the rich.
For seven years, Pelosi and the Democrats have been critical of these tax cuts, the Bush tax rates, because they only gave tax relief to the rich who don't need the money, who don't want the money, who don't ask for tax cuts, it is said.
And now all of a sudden, today, Pelosi and the Democrats are going to vote on extending what they have said for seven years never existed.
Tax cuts for the middle class.
And they're doing this for TV ads.
They're doing this for campaign ads next year.
As the defenders of the middle class when for seven years somebody's going to have to put tape together to remind the people of this country that there weren't any tax cuts for the middle class as far as Pelosi was concerned.
I mean, it's just the height of hypocrisy.
And is I know there's nothing new about it.
And I could not let this program get started without pointing all of this out.
Also, um, it's amazing how history repeats itself.
I have here uh, ladies and gentlemen, AP dispatch written by the incompetent and hapless Mary Claire Jalinick.
I don't know how J-A-L-O-N-I-C-K, Jelonic, Jalenick, Jalanik, Jolonik, whatever.
She's hapless.
She works for the AP.
Here's the opening sentence.
House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children.
Guess what's back?
Republicans want to starve the kids.
I mean, they haven't even taken over the House yet.
The Democrats still run the show there.
The Republicans are still in a huge minority right now in the House of Representatives.
And here we go.
It's right out of the playbook.
Republicans starve kids.
School lunch cut.
This Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children.
My heart bleeds.
Republicans used a procedural maneuver on Wednesday to try to amend the four and a half billion dollar bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at scruol and make those lunches healthier.
First Lady Moochell Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her let's move campaign to combat childhood obesity.
The truth is it's Michelle's bill that's gone down the tubes.
House Democrats said that the Republican amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delay the final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment.
So the Republicans want background checks for child care workers.
And that is an effort to kill the bill.
What?
Are these workers illegal immigrants and the Democrats don't want that learned?
What is this?
So from all of this we get Republicans want to starve the kids again.
These people ought not have 20% support in public opinion.
They're just predictable, they're idiots.
They're hapless.
You combine this hapless AP story with the one two days ago on unemployment.
And by the way, that mantra, we've got five or six sound bites today.
More Democrats saying unemployment benefits do more to grow the economy than tax cuts do.
So sit tight.
It's going to be a fun ride today here on the EIV network.
The Associated Press is officially a joke.
We um I just need to proclaim it now.
Look at this.
Here's the latest.
We'll get to the Fed here in the next half hour.
I just sit tight, because that's gonna be long and detailed.
I'm gonna, you know, one of the things we Do here on this program is make the complex understandable.
And uh this is a challenge, this Fed thing, and all this money that was essentially printed, money that we don't have yet we do have, that we bailed out foreign banks.
We bailed out domestic banks, we propped up General Electric.
Now that to me is key in this.
We propped up Harley Davidson.
We propped up a number of domestic American businesses.
This is the two million, two trillion dollars during the same time TARP was happening, and nobody knew where it went, they wouldn't tell us.
It turns out it was 3.3 trillion.
We get to all that in the next half hour.
Here from Janine Aversa, AP Economics writer.
More Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week, but the broader trend in layoffs points to a slowly healing job market.
The average over the past month fell to a two-year low.
New claims for unemployment aid rose last week, which is great news for the economy, isn't it?
The more unemployed seeking benefits, the more unemployed getting checks.
I mean, that's great for the economy.
We ought to be booming by now, according to this same AP.
New claims for unemployment aid rose last week by a seasonally adjusted 26,000.
Total now 436,000.
The previous week's claims were revised up slightly to show applications had tumbled by 31,000.
Now, what is this?
The AP finally admitting that last week's new claims number was revised up, just like they've been revised up practically every week during the Obama regime.
But lest we forget, I know it's a lot of numbers to try to keep track of here, but lest we forget, last week's decline of 31,000 jobs was universally described by the news media as a sharp decrease, a plummet.
But an increase of 26,000.
Is just a blip.
Oh, yeah, just a blip.
A decrease, a decline of 31,000, which was revised and changed.
That was great.
That was oh my God, look at we're really coming out of it now.
31,000 fewer job uh applications.
Now, an increase of 26,000, no big deal.
Figures are often volatile during the weeks around the Veterans Day and Thanksgiving holidays, because after all, the annual holidays take the labor department by surprise.
They never see these holidays coming.
They're never able to factor in these holidays with their unemployment numbers.
Damn it, every year.
They work and they slave away and they calculate the unemployment numbers.
Then Thanksgiving shows up.
Damn it, nobody told us Thanksgiving was coming this year.
And I'm gonna say the same thing about Christmas and New Year's.
Damn it, nobody told us Christmas was coming.
So essentially, there is no good news here.
Jobless claims rise, but trend shows improvement.
After all these holidays just continue to befuddle.
The longer term trend has shown a downward drift.
The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths volatility, fell to 431,000 last week as a two-year low.
And that number is going to be revised up by next week.
All of these declines end up being revised upwards.
It's just they don't get reported.
Not much attention is focused on them.
Unemployment numbers are a lot like losing your hair.
Eventually you're going to run out of hair to lose.
Same thing goes for jobs.
Recent signs suggest the economy's on track to end the year on a stronger note.
We hope we hope it AP.
Latest evidence came Thursday when retailers reported strong sales in November.
That's boosting hopes that shoppers will spend more during the holiday season.
Yet tomorrow, here we get the AP hoping shoppers will spend more.
Tomorrow we'll get a story on how shoppers are waiting for deals.
As though that somehow is unique to every year.
It's in their computer.
Just like these unemployment stories, unexpected, um, more than expected, surprisingly, whatever, In their computers, so is this.
Wow, it's Thursday.
Employers are going to employ customers can be spending more money.
Shoppers can be spending more money than tomorrow.
We'll get a story of hand-wringing.
Oh no.
Surveys indicate that shoppers are holding off, waiting for the best deal, as though that never happens.
Remember how evil spending was during the Bush administration, especially holiday spending, when people were spending during the Bush administration.
It was selfishness.
It was greed.
It was people who didn't care about the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, and the starving.
But now, during the Obama regime, happy shoppers spending during the Christmas season.
It's great news.
Why it's a sign of a of a rebounding economy.
Anyway, this story goes on and on and on and on and on.
Uh convoluted as it can be, taking bad news, trying to turn it into positive news simply to show something decent and positive for the Democrats and the Obama regime.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
Happy holidays, happy new year.
Whatever.
Whatever makes you happy.
Hope you get everything you want this year.
Hope you're able to give everything you want to give me.
That's the big deal.
But let's face it, getting is fun too.
Let's go back, audio sound like wise to me on my program.
This program, this is March 12th of this year.
The TARP money was not used for its original purpose.
The Federal Reserve, before the TARP bailout, made loans totaling two trillion dollars, and they will not tell us to whom.
We don't know who got the money.
Whether the Fed loans it or whether the government prints it, it's our money.
So you can talk about the 700 billion TARP.
You can talk about the 787 billion stimulus.
That's nothing compared to the amount of money the Federal Reserve lent people at the same time, two trillion dollars.
So we don't know where it went, and they will not tell us.
Well, we now know that it wasn't two trillion, and we know it was a little bit over three trillion, and we know where it went now.
Finally, we know where some of it went.
The Federal Reserve reveal revealed details yesterday of trillions of dollars in emergency aid that it gave to U.S. and foreign banks and to non-bank companies, ranging from General Electric to Harley Davidson during the financial crisis.
So let me pause for just a second.
We go to California and we look at all of the unfunded pension liabilities.
For the teachers, public employees unions, Illinois, Teamsters, same thing in Illinois in New York.
We have people who have been living on federal dollars, people been living on the public doll.
Humongous lifestyles.
And none of it's been real.
All of this has made me wonder just how many of the people who are doing well have actually done well.
How much of it's real?
How much of it has really been earned versus how much of it's on the cum?
How much of it is just paper?
And I don't just mean debt when I say paper, but just worthless dollars.
Makes me wonder how much of any financial liquidity or solvency from an individual to a family to a any entity, government or private.
How much of it's real?
We're talking 3.3 trillion dollars in loans, giveaways.
That amount of money, folks, that's that's twice the annual budget of this country.
Why do banks need that kind of money?
What in the world?
Now we know at the root of this, the foundation of this domestically is the subprime mortgage mess.
That is the foundation.
That's where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack lost their value, lost their worth.
It is where banks I mean.
Banks were forced to make loans to people who couldn't pay it back.
So therefore, people were in homes they could not afford.
Therefore, homes were built that really the market had no business bill.
There weren't there wasn't any genuine demand.
All of this was the result of government policy that manifested itself in the form of government demands.
Remember, Janet Reno was threatening banks.
Bank presidents and executives.
If you don't do this, we're going to investigate you.
So how much of this is real?
General Electric for crying out loud, General Electric has always been a license to print money just by virtue of doing business.
And yet they needed.
And I question if they even needed, but General Electric ended up getting um what was it, a hundred and sixteen million dollars?
find the...
Hell, even the California State Teachers Retirement System got some of this money.
The city of Bristol, Connecticut, General City Retirement Fund got some of this money.
I just...
I look at this and my mouth falls open.
$3.3 trillion in loans to financial institutions, companies, and foreign central banks during the crisis in 2008.
The figure comes from adding up the maximum amount of aid provided for each of the Fed's credit programs.
GE borrowed $16 billion.
GE borrowed a total of more than $16 billion.
Now, in the case of General Electric, let's connect some dots.
The CEO of GE is Jeffrey Immelt.
Jeffrey Immelt sits on one of Obama's economic commissions.
CNBC is owned by General Electric.
That news business news channel has been obviously in the tank for Obama and regime economic policy since he was sworn in.
General Electric has been big in this green technology movement.
And every other week it seems, all of GE, from NBC to CNBC to MSNBC, goes green.
And we we find out now that that the regime found its way on the General Electric Board in a sense with this, you know, when you end up lending this kind of money to private your private industry, you end up on their board.
You have a say-so in other company is socialism.
And you don't have to go to the board meetings, but you this is, I mean, this is this is Marxian, it's right out of Karl Marx.
I know you start accusing these people of being socialists and people laugh.
Ah, come on, Rush, that's insane talk.
You know, that's that's a talk of kooks.
So it may be, but it's what it is.
When Obama or anybody he wants to appoint essentially sits on the GE board, and when GE doesn't care, and there's this I mean it's it's very, very troubling, ladies and gentlemen.
So try to understand all of this.
I saw at the council of Mike Munger, who is the director, philosophy politics, economics program at Duke University.
Now here are some more details.
New documents show that most loan and other aid for U.S. institutions over time went Citigroup, 2.2 trillion.
2.2 trillion to a bank?
Merrill Lynch, 2.1 trillion.
Morgan Stanley, 2 trillion.
Bear Stearns, 960 billion, Bank of America America, 887 billion.
Goldman Sachs.
What do they need any money for?
They were bailed out twice.
They got this and they got money via AIG.
Well now, what is a little schlub like me supposed to make of this?
Well, what I make of this is cap and trade.
Somebody is going to benefit from the trades if we actually do start trading carbon credits.
Goldman Sachs had the exclusive or the near exclusive on this, but still, why $615 billion?
I remember when this was all happening, and it was TARP that I was talking about, and I was being halfway facetious.
But Henry Paulson was the Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs.
And at the time, in the fall of 2008, we're hearing nothing but the end of the world when it came to economics.
This country and the world, and we had to do Tarp.
Or else life as we knew it ceased to exist.
And I said, Oh, this isn't making a joke.
Paulson just wants to make sure his buddies don't have to give up their homes in the Hamptons.
And I look at this list of people who got the money, and I'm sure they were able to keep their homes in the Hamptons.
Oh, many other people are losing theirs.
I mean, what are we to make?
$615 billion for Goldman Sachs.
And there's during all this, they're paying billion dollar bonuses to people in total, not individual billion dollars, but the bonus package is totaling billions.
JP Morgan Chase, $178 billion.
I mean, that's David Rockefeller's bank for crime.
He's not with it anymore, but $178 billion.
Wells Fargo, $154 billion.
Merrill Lynch was later acquired by Bank of America.
Bear Stearns collapsed and was sold to JP Morgan.
And in the midst of all this, it's Lehman Brothers, who for some reason they said, bye-bye, guys, that we don't want to save you.
So they were.
They went kaputz.
Why?
We're bailing everybody else out.
Why not Lehman Brothers?
Foreign banks that benefited from the Fed's aid, included the Swiss bank UBS, which borrowed more than $165 billion.
And isn't it interesting to note that that Swiss bank finally caved and decided to share the names and account data of Americans who had accounts with them.
Now, Swiss banking used to be the epitome of privacy.
You wanted nobody to know what you were doing financially.
You put your money with a Swiss bank, and nobody knew, not even the Swiss bankers all knew what you were doing.
But all of a sudden, UBS borrowed more than $165 billion, and the IRS makes a deal with them, or Treasury makes a deal with them, and now that notion of privacy is gone.
Deutsche Bank, $97 billion.
Royal Bank of Scotland, $92 billion.
The documents are a reminder of how crippled the financial system had become during the crisis and how much it's recovered since then.
Banks earned $14 billion from July through September of this year.
Many of the individual loans the banks took were worth billions and had short durations, but were paid back and renewed many times.
Among the largest recipients were foreign central banks, such as the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the borrowed, they borrowed huge amounts of dollars from the Fed to assist their own banks.
This is the EU bailout, which we learned yesterday that we participated.
That's what this story is all about.
Large non-banking companies in the U.S. used the Fed's lending program to pay employees or supply.
You try to go to a bank to get a loan to make payroll and see what happens to you.
You're not going to get a loan to make payroll.
You've got to get your loan to do something else.
But these non-bank companies got money from the Fed to pay employees or suppliers or to make loans through their subsidiaries.
Like GE has a GMAC JM, but GE Capital or something.
They've got to.
And then they did so.
They went to the Fed because private financing had all but evaporated.
And private financing had evaporated because the subprime mortgage crisis.
Essentially, there are obviously other reasons for it.
Over time, GE borrowed a total of more than 16 billion, and then ends up in bed with the Obama regime.
Harley Davidson 2.3 billion and a group of independent caterpillar dealers, 733 million.
Now, caterpillar, that rings a bell too, doesn't it?
Because caterpillar was cited by Obama as initially supporting the porculus bill when the CEO said, I'm sorry, but no, we didn't.
We're being misrepresented here.
And the caterpillar CEO eventually had to say that we're going to keep laying people off rather than hiring people.
Obama said they were going to start hiring.
They're on the list.
And then two other recipients, the California State Teachers Retirement System is going to the Federal Reserve and borrowing money.
And the City of Bristol, Connecticut, General City Retirement Fund.
That's ESPN.
That's all that's there.
ESPN, a couple of cheap hotels.
Don't ask me, snurdly.
I don't know how it.
I don't know how if you have to know somebody.
I mean, the Fed windows open.
Can anybody go in there?
No, obviously that doesn't happen that way.
The documents disclose details of more than $3.3 trillion in loans to financial institutions, companies, and foreign central banks during the crisis.
The Fed detailed more than two trillion in Lent through eight programs from December 2007 to July this year.
Now, the next question becomes where did they get the money?
You see, they're independent.
The Fed, Munger explained this in emails this morning.
The Fed is totally independent.
They they don't have to get money through legislation.
Congress does not have to approve it.
They can, well, as you know, print it, which they're doing.
So was any of this real?
In the sense that was it backed by anything.
Or did they just essentially print this and add to the money supply with nothing to back it up?
Which the smart money is on that.
Anyway, a little long here, and I thought that'd be the case, but I gotta think of quick time out.
We'll try to condense some of this and have it make as much sense as it can when we come back.
Now I know what's going on out there today.
The people, wherever they are and whoever they are, who know exactly what happened here, what it's all about, they are having the fun, most fun time listening to people like me trying to figure this out.
They're out there and they're listening and they're listening to us go through all this.
They know exactly what happened.
They know they got away with it, and they're saying, okay, let's see what these clowns like Limbaugh and everybody else in the media that's looking into.
Let's see what they have to say about it.
You know they're doing that.
You do the same thing when you you're on the inside, you know something gets happened, people are just finding out about it, you'll love to hear them talk about it when you know everything about it.
So I know that's happening out there.
And at the end of this, they're gonna think, well, we succeeded.
We pulled it over everybody's eyes.
They think they know, but they got no clue.
All I know is that I think it's very interesting.
All this news is coming out right after the elections and as long as possible before the next election.
We get word of a vast emergency during the campaign of 2008.
A crisis.
If we don't act now, we're dead.
None of us will have anything.
So we act on it.
We are mired in a continually down spiraling economy.
So bad that our exalted leaders now tell us that unemployment checks grow the economy.
That's how bad it is out there.
That they have to feed us that pap.
And now it's after the election, and we get wind of all this, and it's still two years plus before the next election.
Jeff Emelt, GE CEO, sits on Obama's economic recovery advisory board.
Did GE need 116 billion dollars?
I maintain to you that if GE needed 116 billion dollars, ML would be gone and the stock price uh would be in big trouble.
I think that 116 billion dollars was a gift.
I think it's free money.
A bribe, a payoff, whatever you want to call it.
They didn't need it.
Europe did.
MSNBC didn't need any money to stay in business.
MSNBC is a loss leader.
Refrigerator sales subsidize MSNBC.
Hell, the the refrigerator, the washer dryer division probably subsidize MSNB.
They're a loss leader.
They can sit there and lose all the money in the world they want.
No bailout was for MSNB's.
I guarantee them to you of that.
But the the Europe, Europe, those banks, yeah, they they needed the money, but GE didn't.
These companies, they didn't need it, but they made a fortune.
Somebody gave them 116 billion dollars and they're able to invest it or do whatever they want with it.
They were bought.
Something happened.
I mean, you don't just get 116 billion dollars from the regime for nothing.
You owe them something when that happens.
Nothing's free.
You want in on the deal, here's the price.
So, anyway, I got another quick break here, folks, but don't go away.
I just want you to remember all that populist bluster coming out of Obama's mouth about how he was gonna stick it to these Wall Street guys.
The only thing standing between them and you at the pitchforks was Obama.
And look at who got all this money.
We know who's in bed with who else.
They can't fool us on this.
Okay, there's more.
▲
Export Selection