According to the gang at Newsbusters, not one of the three main networks has covered the report that anybody said F the president on any of their evening news shows or any of their morning shows.
Now, imagine when that guy threw the shoe at Bush over there in Baghdad.
Imagine if a bunch of Republicans had said F Bush.
You think they'd be all over.
They were all over Joe Wilson.
When he shouted out, you lie to Obama during a State of the Union show.
At any rate, it's clear, ladies and gentlemen.
Imagine if I had said F Obama.
If I had said it, right.
In any event, it is clear, ladies and gentlemen, these racist attacks on Obama are continuing for a fourth day, unabated from the left.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Right.
Vice President Cheney told Pat Leahy, F off.
They're walking down the hallway somewhere.
He's a go F yourself or F off or whatever.
No, was it on the Senate floor?
No, it was in the hallway.
And at any rate, the press was all over that.
This is horrible.
The decorum that's falling by the wayside here because of the vice president.
Why?
It's so unbecoming.
And yet, here are all these Democrat racists dropping the F-bomb all over about Obama.
F-Off!
F him!
All this stuff, we've played the sound bites for you here, folks.
Well, we played the soundbites of people quoting the other guys.
This took place in there behind closed doors.
And as you all know, then this is racism.
Any criticism, our first black president has always been said to be racist.
So we have four days of it now, unabated.
And it's intensifying.
Bernie Sanders here is on the floor of the Senate.
He's conducting a filibuster.
He started at 10.25.
And we have just a couple of sound bites from his filibuster.
It is not a conservative approach to substantially increase the national debt by giving tax breaks to billionaires.
How many times have you been here on the floor hearing our Republican colleagues give long speeches about the danger and the unsustainability of a $13.7 trillion national debt and a $1.4 trillion deficit?
You've heard it.
That's their mantra.
We have heard it.
They've been on the floor and they've been talking about your irresponsible spending.
Bernie Sanders, racist.
I mean, he's launching all this at Obama, too, because Obama wants tax breaks for billionaires.
That's not what this is either.
This is the funny thing.
Nobody's getting any kind of a tax break here.
Here's more from Bernie Sanders.
Well, if they believe that, why are they voting for a proposal that substantially increases the national debt for the very unproductive reason of giving tax breaks to the richest people in this country who don't need it?
I do not want to see my kids and grandchildren pay more in taxes because we borrowed money from China to increase the national debt in order to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who have done extraordinarily well in recent years.
This guy's reading from Krauthammer's piece today.
That Krauthammer mentions that where we, you know, calling China for a billion dollars to give tax breaks to the rich.
Well, we're not, well, I said that they won't give us the money if that's how it's phrased.
I mean, if Obama to call Hu Zen Tao say who Need need about 300 billion.
Oh, yeah, what for now?
Whoa, three years of unemployment insurance.
Wait, you're gonna, you want 300 billion from us to pay people not to work?
That's right, who really?
You're up to three years now to pay people not to work, and you want us to pay for it.
Well, we want to borrow it from you.
So, who hangs up the phone and says to his buddies in the Politburo, man, this is happening faster than we thought.
They're actually paying people to destroy their country now.
So, Bernie Sanders is up there.
He's complaining about the debt.
Continuing tax breaks on, follow the logic here.
Continuing tax breaks to small businesses will not stimulate the economy and grow jobs, but extending unemployment benefits for three years will stimulate the economy and grow jobs.
That's what these guys are saying.
Giving small little tax breaks to business people, eh, it won't help a thing, but paying people to work three years, not to work for three years, will stimulate the economy.
That's where we are with these schlubs.
Anyway, rank hatred for the rich.
Unabated, undiluted rank hatred for the rich.
Now, these attacks on Obama by the left, racist, they've never said F him or F it to a white Democrat president, have they?
Have they?
Did any of these guys you know, and Clinton lost the house?
Clinton lost the house with his health care deal.
I don't remember any white members of Congress saying F Clinton.
Where's the congressional black caucus on this?
I mean, you got these white guys saying F Obama, F you to Obama.
And they never said that to a white Democrat president.
They even never said F Clinton when Clinton was effing around.
And he was breaking the law while he was effing around, and they defended him.
They circled the wagons around Clinton while he was effing around.
And here these guys are now saying, F you, Obama.
F off, Obama.
It is racist.
They don't talk that way to white presidents.
Even Bush, they didn't tell Bush to F off.
When Cheney said that to Leahy, it was a white guy to white guy.
There's nothing racist there.
I mean, they did whatever Clinton told them to do, even while he was breaking the law.
They defended him.
Well, he's lying in his deposition.
They did whatever Clinton told him to do.
So this has to be liberal racism against the first black president, who is also historic.
Stop it.
I'm serious about this.
Stop and think about it.
A bunch of white leftist Democrats with the F-bomb all over to Obama.
I mean, that's, I don't care to whom.
That is a major sign of disrespect.
I know Clinton lost the House as well.
They never said F anything to him for doing that whatsoever.
Somebody asked me, how do I know Bernie Sanders is filibustering?
He never shuts up anyway.
It's a good point.
He never shuts up.
Let's see.
What do we have?
What do we have?
Oh, let's go back to the audio soundbites because there's still some good ones here on the roster.
Last night, Fox News channel Hannity, great American panel, Sean Hannity, speaking to Pat Cadell about Obama Hannity, said this president goes to G20 meetings with foreign leaders, no deal made ahead of time.
He sends Clinton to the World Cup to secure it.
We lose out to Qatar.
Nothing happens.
He flies to Copenhagen.
Obama does and gets embarrassed.
He seems to be lost.
Let's face one thing.
He is the least prepared person to have been president in modern times.
And it's beginning to show.
Least prepared person to have been president in modern times.
Least prepared.
Pat Cadell, Democrat, well, fundraiser, pollster, not fundraiser, pollster.
Saying this about the Messiah, the smartest, most articulate president we've ever had.
Look at the plunge in two years.
In two years, his own party, the white guys in his own party, saying, F you, F off, whatever.
Not comfortable for us to sit here and repeat this because everybody knows what the F means, but I don't know how else to do it.
Do you?
If I said G off without giving you the translation, what would you, I mean, this is unseemly to have to sit here and do this.
Congressional Black Caucus is supposed to announce their disapproval of the tax deal sometimes today.
They must be racist too because they're opposing Obama on this.
They're going to oppose the deal.
Hatred of the rich, class warfare, fundamental principle of Marxism.
The mask is finally coming off all these people.
Yesterday, Obama at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, this was a meeting of the president's export council.
The president said.
Every economist that I've talked to or that I've read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs.
That's got to tick them off because they think cutting taxes for the rich now, their own president saying it's going to create jobs.
Of course, again, nobody's taxes are being cut, but that's how they interpret this.
So yesterday, the deal has the potential to create a million jobs.
This morning on NPR's morning edition, he was asked, what do you intend to do about the House Democrats who've said they're not going to bring your plan to a vote in its current form?
Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1st because Congress didn't act.
We're also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger.
Over the last 48 hours, a range of independent economists, both left and right, have concluded that this package would, in fact, increase potential economic growth by as much as 1% and could end up meaning an additional million and a half jobs.
And that, I think, has got to be the highest priority for the pressure.
Wait a second.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Go back and play number 12 here again right now.
Every economist that I've talked to or that I've read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs.
Millions of jobs.
And then this morning he said million and a half.
It keeps growing, This number.
Then the NPR guy said, well, can you accept some changes to this plan?
Or is it the kind of deal you can't or will not change?
There are going to be discussions between both House and Senate leadership about all the final elements of the package.
Keep in mind, we didn't actually write a bill.
We put forward a framework.
I'm confident that the framework is going to look like the one that we put forward.
I'm confident that we're going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month.
Okay.
Didn't answer the question.
Next question.
Let me ask you about something that we've heard from one of our listeners.
Please ask him how keeping a tax rate for the richest the same as it's been for a decade creates one single job.
What?
Somebody actually got that question past the editors at NPR?
I don't believe it.
Somebody, a listener to NPR, actually asked this question?
It's a good question.
Let me ask you about something that we have heard from one of our listeners.
Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it's been for 10 years creates one single job.
It doesn't, which is why I was opposed to it.
And I'm still opposed to it.
I've said repeatedly that I think they're not a smart thing to do, particularly because we've got to borrow money essentially to pay for them.
The problem is that this is the single issue that the Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for.
Either I allow the recovery that we're on to be endangered or we make a compromise now, understanding that for the next two years, this is going to be a central battle as part of a larger discussion about how do we reform our tax code so that it's fair and how do we make sure that we actually are dealing with the deficit and debt in an intelligent way.
He does.
He admits it doesn't create a single job and that's why he's opposed to it, yet he's trying to get it passed.
He's opposed to it.
It doesn't create a single job.
So he's trying to get this passed because Republicans are willing to scotch the whole deal for this.
Either I allow the recovery that we're on to be endangered or we make a compromise now, understanding for the next two years, this is going to be a central.
He wants this battle.
See, this is my point.
He wants this.
He opposes it.
He doesn't think it's going to create a single job.
He knows, folks, he's telegraphing this.
He's screwed up here.
He knows it won't create a single job.
And he wants to be able to say that after two years.
It didn't create a single job.
We're not going to do this anymore.
No more tax cuts for the rich ever.
I have proven the supply side doesn't work.
That's the end game here.
No question about it.
He has Open Line Friday, and that means an emphasis on the phones.
Fort Worth, Texas, and Doug.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks for taking my call, Russ.
I've been listening to your show for 18 years and loved every minute of it.
Thank you very much, sir.
The reason I was calling, I was listening to your show yesterday, and I heard the quote from Anthony Weiner talking about the death tax and how people getting to keep that money is not fair.
And it really, I almost ran my truck off the road when I heard that.
I was so irritated.
Right, it's because he said it's because they're dead.
But we ought to raise their taxes because they're dead.
But what made it so irritated about it is that it's not fair for states to be able to keep their, and by a state, I'm talking about the money that's going to a family or to someone that is a legal heir.
It's not fair for them to keep their money, but it is fair for someone to be on unemployment for what they're shooting for is three years and sit at home and watch the Oprah and whoever else they're watching and not contribute anything to society.
And I say that as a self-employed person, I've been unemployed twice in my life.
The last time I was unemployed, I was unemployed for about three weeks and decided that if I wasn't going to find a job, I was going to create a job.
I know that there's thousands of things that people can do sitting at home all day.
There's things they can do that can generate income.
If nothing else, this is the time of year you can go out and hang Christmas lights on people's houses.
People pay you for that as well.
So what's fair is people earning their own, people not expecting the government to take care of everything for them.
And what really bugs me about this whole program is these liberals, it's like they just don't understand where the money is coming from.
How long have you held this view?
I'm sure you felt this way before you heard Wiener say what he said yesterday.
It's been a long time.
I felt, I never believed in unemployment.
I think unemployment should be a stepping stone to another job.
I don't think it should be a way of life.
Here's my point.
You've known this for years.
You've known that the Democrats believe that the wealth tax ought to be 50% and that once somebody dies, they're dead and that their heirs shouldn't get it, that it ought to be giant transfer of income and redistribution, put the money back into so-called circulation.
But why, all of a sudden now, you've reached, sound like you've reached a tipping point.
Do you know, if I'm right, why?
Why all of a sudden now is this getting to you the way it is?
Because what I've noticed in the last couple of years is everything is an attempt at a revenue stream.
And I believe that this is just one more area that they're looking at saying, okay, this is some place we don't have to raise taxes.
We can take a backdoor approach and we can get revenue here.
We can take this backdoor approach and get revenue there.
What they're doing with this is they're killing innovation.
They're getting companies that may be able to, or they're getting people that may be able to take that money and use it to start an industry.
Right.
And here's the thing.
They're doing it on purpose.
You think they're wrong.
And fundamentally they are, but they're doing it on purpose.
I would submit that the reason that, and it's not just you, there are more and more.
Bernie Goldberg wrote a column recently on his website in which he attempted to thank the rich for all the contributions they've made to the country.
And he told me he was excoriated by more than half the people that responded.
How dare he praise the rich?
What you, you either know it subconsciously or it's in the forefront.
What you know is it's an all-out war now.
And you are seeing it right in front of your face.
The unemployed are being treated as virtuous.
They are being treated to further payments while not working.
Now up to three years, you're seeing more and more Democrats come out and actually wage war on the rich, wage war on working people, wage war on creative people, wage war on the people that provide jobs, wage war on the productive people of this country.
You see it now.
It's been a little bit more abstract, but now these guys lost the election and the mask is off and you are seeing the genuine Marxists that they are.
You're seeing it and you're seeing the venom that's attached to them.
I mean, they look at what happened to Charlie Wrangell as fair.
You know, There's an all-out war against productive, self-reliant people in this country by the Democrat Party.
That's what you notice.
Merry Christmas to one and all.
Happy New Year's Eve from us at the EIB Network to all of you.
So Bernie Sanders, I'm going back to some of his filibuster.
I got a couple of more bites here.
Mike Numerals 2526.
So Bernie Sanders, we borrow, what, a billion dollars to pay for the tax cuts, right?
I learned from Bernie Sanders, we borrow money from the CHICOMs for millionaires and billionaires.
But when we spend on porculus and unemployment and tarp, everything else, what do we do?
We borrow that from Japan.
I mean, they are number two.
So what do we believe here?
The CHICOMs are paying for the so-called tax cuts for the rich.
Here, Bernie's still on his roll.
We have two more bites.
Here's the first one.
Mr. President, when we look at the context in which this agreement was reached, we have got to see that it takes place at a time when the rich are already doing phenomenally well, while we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world.
Top 400 wealthiest people in this country earn $345 million a year, and they pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.
They do not need an extension of tax breaks.
And by the way, for the United States of America, this effective tax rate of 16.6% on average is the lowest tax rate for the very rich in America that has ever been, ever been.
Okay.
Unfortunately, I feel the need to respond to this.
When we look at the context in which the agreement was reached, we have got to see that it takes place at a time when the rich are already doing phenomenally well.
While we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, the top 400 wealthiest people in this country earn $345 million a year.
And they pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.
Now, the top 400 wealthiest people in the world are not who we're really talking about here with these tax breaks.
The top 400 wealthiest, I mean, every damn one of them is going to be a billionaire or damn close.
We're talking about small business people, 250,000, 500,000, 750,000.
These are the people that employ other people.
And they are not paying a tax rate of 16.6%.
To pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%, you're paying tax on dividends, not income.
There is no way people at 36%, trust me on this, there is no way people paying 36% are paying an effective rate of 16.
By the way, the effective rate definition is a little misleading itself.
And Bernie Sanders knows this.
But also, he says the 400 wealthiest people in this country earn.
They earn.
Are they stealing it from the rich or from the poor?
Let me ask the question this way.
Who is more evil?
Who is more greedy here?
Those millionaires and the billionaires or the federal government.
The government steals much more than the private sector.
The government is much more corrupt than the private sector.
government is more in debt than the private sector.
The government is more irresponsible with money than the private sector.
The private sector is not trying to pick our pockets at every turn, even when we die.
It isn't trying to take control of our lives.
The private sector is doing none of the evil the government is doing.
The real greed in this country is in Washington and in every one of the 50 state capitals, 57 if you live in Obama world.
The government takes people's earnings multiple times.
You choose who in the private sector is going to get a portion of what you earn.
The private sector can't take one dime from you.
You have to voluntarily spend it with them.
Now, Mr. Sanders railing here about, oh, it's horrible.
These rich people earning $345 million.
They don't need a tax break.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what these people do with their $345 million that they've earned.
He has no clue what they do with it.
Obviously, he doesn't, or he wouldn't characterize them the way he does.
Here's the next bite.
This one's even worse.
The top 25 hedge fund managers last year made a combined $25 billion in income, a combined $1 billion per person.
Okay?
So if you are a hedge fund manager, you're doing pretty, pretty good.
And I mentioned a moment ago, we tried just the other day to get checks of $250 out for disabled vets and senior citizens on Social Security who haven't had a COLA in two years, couldn't get them that check.
But the top 25 hedge fund managers last year made a combined $25 billion in income, a billion dollars per person.
And our Republican friends say, oh, my word, we've got to lower their taxes.
No, you know what we do, Bernie?
We say, take the account that you can't afford to pay to veterans and give it to the hedge fund managers and let it really grow.
Bernie, what's obvious here with your own statistic is the government cannot meet its responsibilities.
The government can't meet its promises.
Not every hedge fund manager makes a billion dollars a year.
There are far more than 25 of them.
There are top earners in every profession.
And there are people at the bottom of earnings in every profession.
So these top 25 guys earn a billion dollars per person.
So, it's legit.
It's how they do business.
They do business with people who sign up to do business with them that way.
You can't afford your COLA to Social Security or the disabled vets because you haven't managed the government's money.
The government doesn't have any.
The government is in debt.
It's not because of the hedge fund, guys.
I would tell you the taxes they are paying dwarf whatever it's going to cost you to give your $250 billion away.
And why is there no COLA, Bernie?
Inflation's going up.
You want to know why there's no cost of living adjustment?
Because Obama doesn't want there to appear to be any inflation.
So the way you guys, the way you snakes are going around this, is to say, well, there's no inflation.
It's unfair.
Cost of living adjustment increase are not going out to Social Security people and veterans.
So we want to cut them a check for $200.
No, no, no, no.
The deal is that if there's no inflation, they don't get an increase.
The deal, Bernie.
That's the law.
All of a sudden, now, even though there's inflation, you guys say there isn't any because you're trying to put forth this notion, this myth of an economic recovery for the sacred of your president, peace be upon him.
And all of a sudden, you now want to come up with the money anyway.
So you got to write checks going against the deal.
The deal is they don't get anything.
There's no inflation.
You say there's no inflation.
And we all know there is, and you do too.
So that's why you're trying to come up with the additional $250.
What is evident by virtue of his own reasoning here is that his outfit's not responsible.
His outfit can't meet its pledges, can't make their commitments, can't make their promises, can't fulfill anything that they promised people.
Bernie, you're bankrupt.
The institution you represent, the beloved institution that you champion, is bankrupt.
You're having to borrow money from the CHICOMs to survive.
The hedge fund guys are earning theirs.
There may be some ChiComs investing, but the ChiComs aren't loaning it to them and they're not giving it to them.
Classic example of free market doing great.
The lesson here is: why don't you try to emulate all these people doing so well?
Why don't you take the way they're earning money and try to incorporate some of their theories into the way the government operates with its money?
Well, you can't, Bernie, because that's not your intent.
And you don't have the knowledge to do it anyway.
The richest entity by far in this country is your government, Bernie.
You ought to hate your government.
You ought to despise your government.
Why, look at all the unfair tax breaks your government gets.
You tax people seven times.
You tax people every time they exchange a dollar.
Look at all of the ill-gotten wealth that your government has, and you are still broke.
You ought to hate your government.
Look at how rich you guys are.
Look at the health care bill that you guys just passed.
One hand, you should be happy that you were able to pull that off.
No, you're miserable.
It's all because you're just jealous.
You wish you had a billion dollars a year, but you haven't the foggiest notion how to make more than what you're already making-175,000 or whatever your Senate salary is, which is, I can tell you, you're not even worth that.
As far as your employees are concerned, us all around you, people, all around you are the lessons to learn how to be solvent, how to be profitable.
What do you do?
You take the biggest pile of money that exists in this world every year and you mismanage it.
And you have taken this country into bankruptcy.
And you dare go on the floor of the house and complain and blame it on working people earning what they have, regardless of the amount.
You blame them.
You take the taxes they pay away from what you have, and you see what you're left with.
Because you're headed that way anyway.
You're getting to the point, Bernie, where all your taxation is going to force these people out of the country or going to force them to retire and live off what they've got.
So, hell, it's not going to be worth dealing with you, Bernie.
It's getting to the point where the citizens of this country don't consider their own government their friend.
The people of this country are starting to consider their own government the enemy going to get on an airplane, starting to feel like trying to cross the Berlin Wall in the United States of America.
The only difference is none of the women crossing the Berlin Wall were worth frisking.
Here's Bob in Berkeley.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
It's an honor.
I wanted to make a point.
I worked in Portland, Oregon, for a while.
I had a boss.
I did sales there with a few other guys.
And every time the boss saw how much we were making in commissions, he would change the pay structure.
But once we got the new pay structure for the year, we would go to work and figure out how to exploit that pay structure so that we could continue making what we were supposed to be making in our sales.
Well, I feel like right now with the tax codes, what they're doing is they continue to change this, making it hard for me to really strategize with my company and figure out ways where I can move around and find the loopholes.
And I feel like if they would just give me something set for five to eight years, well, then I'll go to work and figure out how I can make money and save on my taxes by taking advantage of different loopholes that are out there.
But as they continue to change things, it makes it really impossible for me to look ahead and start to structure my company.
Well, that's a good point.
It's an excellent point.
We've had the same tax rates for 10 years.
We've had them.
And now they're starting to talk about changing them.
And now, no, we're not going to change them.
We're going to leave them the same for two years and then we're going to raise them, which defeats the whole purpose.
I know that happened in 1986 when we really lowered rates and got rid of a lot of deductions.
To this day, there are people still ticked off.
We had a guy call today about it.
Still ticked off that their precious credit card interest deduction was taken away from them.
They're still livid about it.
You remember?
They're still mad about it.
I almost lost this audience over that issue when it happened.
That happened.
This show started two years after that.
That's how people were still livid about it.
So I get your point.
Unfortunately, I can't go any further than that because of the constraints of time and the programming format.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we were on the ball and if the Republicans were on the ball, the question being asked would be, why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment extensions here at Christmas?
That's how this ought to be framed.
If we were on offense, that would be the question.
Why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment benefits here at Christmastime?