All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
December 16, 2010, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I'm sitting here.
I'm diligently working hard, minding my own business, prepping this program.
And I have these TV monitors on up here.
I've got PMS NBC on, you know, which I'm actually thinking of dumping.
And, hell, C-SPAN would be better.
Maybe go over to CNN.
I mean, just for the laugh factor.
But anyway, I'm watching this, and here comes Obama with a press conference.
Well, not a press conference, but an appearance, a statement on Afghanistan.
For crying out loud, folks, I mean, that's the clearest illustration yet of the circus going on in Washington.
It's so bad that they're trying to distract us with news from Afghanistan.
That's bad.
Great to have you here.
El Rushbow, the EIB network, and the Linboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we serve humanity simply by showing up our telephone numbers, 800-282-2882.
Email address, El Rushbow at EIBnet.com.
Has anybody actually seen Obama's vacation itinerary?
I mean, we've heard that Obama is going to Hawaii, but I'm wondering if he and Michelle and the girls might actually be headed to Texas, to Crawford, Texas, on vacation.
Get in some mountain biking and some brush clearing.
Drive the pickup around, pick up some junk.
Look, folks, it's becoming increasingly obvious here.
Obama's role model is Bush.
Gidmos still open.
Afghanistan still active.
Press conferences on how well we're doing there.
Debatable spying on possible terrorists.
Yep.
We're doing it.
Warrantless wiretaps out there.
Petraeus running the war.
Thank goodness.
But I mean, that's a Bush holdover.
And now the tax cuts.
The Bush tax cuts, which have now become the Obama tax cuts.
But Obama has put his presidency on the line to keep them.
After blaming those tax cuts for every economic problem we've got, Obama's now out there telling Democrats that his presidency is over if they don't vote to continue the Bush tax cuts.
Peter DeFazio, bald-headed liberal from, well, I'm sorry, that doesn't matter.
Peter DeFazio, liberal from Oregon, said Obama said that in the White House that we never talked to Peter DeFazio.
We haven't said that.
But at any rate, we all know that Obama is staking everything here to these Bush tax cuts or the tax rates staying the same for two years.
And then today, we learn that Obama is hiring military contractors, i.e. African American water.
He's hiring Blackwater, Bush mercenaries.
That's what they used to be called.
Obama's now hiring them.
When Bush employed military contractors, they were called Bush mercenaries.
Now they are Obama's angels.
This is from the Daily Beast.
As American commanders meet this week for the Afghanistan Review, Obama is hiring military contractors at a rate that would make Bush blush.
Tim Shorak on the Blackwater heirs, Blackwater, African American Water, whatever it is.
I don't actually know if he's hiring Blackwater, but he's hiring people like it.
I mean, this is, you know, the left out there just got to be fuming.
Obama's giving us George W. Bush for Christmas.
That's what this is happening out there.
Let's go to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air, here is a portion of linguist Jeff Nunberg's report about his annual word of the year.
Guess what?
This guy, I guess, does a special report on NPR at the end of the year on the annual word of the year.
And according to this guy at NPR, this year's word is no.
After some early defensiveness, a lot of Republicans embraced the label and even ratcheted it up a notch.
We're not just the party of no, Rush Limbaugh said.
We're the party of hell no.
And Republican leaders quickly adopted the line.
That extra word shifted the meaning of the phrase.
It no longer suggested just opposition to particular bills and programs, but unapologetic and resolute defiance.
That stance clearly resonated with a lot of voters.
Does that not just sound like an NPR report to do an in-depth report on the word of the year?
No.
Here's the way, hell no.
And then last night on the Fox News Channel special report during the All-Star panel, the host Brett Baer spoke with the associate editor of the Hill, A.B. Stoddard.
You've ever wondered what A.B., it's weird when women call themselves by their first two initials.
You know, that's generally for fat cat business guys or pseudo-intellectual writers.
She calls herself A.B. Stoddard.
Her first name is Amy.
But the A.B. business, obviously marketing, you know, stand out.
Anyway, she was talking about the tax rate compromise and me.
And Baer said, so blow it up.
Let the tax increase happen in January 1st.
I'm fascinated that when you have Congressman Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal, Grover Norquist, the entire Republican leadership up against Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney.
I mean, the question of who is more conservative on this is making the leaders nervous.
What should make Republican leaders nervous is going against what the people voted for in November?
It's not about personalities.
You have Congressman Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, Grover Nordquist, the entire Republican leadership up again.
Wait a minute.
I thought I was the Republican leadership.
Because NPR just said that I said hell no, and the Republican Party fell in line.
Now, A.B. Stoddard says that I'm not in a leadership, that it's Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, Grover Norquist up against me, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.
Here's DeFazio.
This is last night on CNN.
It was on Spitzer and Ditzer, and Spitzer said, do you have enough folks standing with you to create a threat that this bill will not pass?
That's a good question because the White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls.
The president's making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal.
I think this is potentially the end of his possibility of being re-elected.
Whoa.
Now, if you had any doubts about this deal, listen to that.
Now, think about it.
Why would Republicans want to help save the Obama presidency?
Why would they?
Now, here you have DeFazio saying, well, yeah, White House putting on tremendous pressure, phone calls, president making phone calls, the end of the presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal.
Well, if it's the end of his presidency, we don't take the deal, right?
Anyway, that's just a little review.
And speaking of bad deal and end of his presidency, let's go back almost a year.
This was January 25th of this year, World News Tonight.
Nian Sawyer talking to the bamster.
She said, ever in the middle of all this coming at you, do you think maybe one term is enough?
I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.
And I believe that.
You know, there's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description of elected officials is to get reelected.
That's not our job description.
I will not slow down in terms of going after the big problems that this country face.
I don't want to look back on my time here and say to myself, all I was concerned about was nurturing my own popularity.
That's not why I came.
Now he's calling Democrats, begging them to save his reelection.
But just a year ago, he didn't care.
He'd rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.
How about a lousy one-term president?
Because that's where we're headed here.
It's already a failure.
All these other Democrats are starting to admit it.
Now, here's the thing about this.
The way you analyze this, if he means this, is I'd rather be a really good one-term-term president.
What would cause him to be a one-term president?
I'd be losing his reelection battle, right?
Well, what would cause him to lose his reelection?
I mean, the public doesn't like what he's doing.
That's how he defines great one-term.
I'd rather be a great one-term president.
Get as much damage of this country done as I can do.
Yeah, I'll lose, but I'd rather do that than sit around here and just be a great, you know, mediocre two-term president by going along with the way the country has always been.
By the way, that Afghanistan presser that he had, well, whatnot a presser, this statement.
It's the second time in a week that he left a Clinton at the podium.
Hillary was standing there.
Listen to this.
I'm going to turn it over to Secretaries Clinton, Gates, as well as Vice Chairman Cartwright, and they will be able to answer your questions and give you a more detailed briefing.
So he shows up, gives the overview of the brief on Afghanistan, then heads out to another, what, holiday lunch or what have you, and leaves the heavy lifting to Senators Clinton and our secretaries Clinton and Cartwright.
All right, massive spending.
Let's just review where we are here.
Massive spending under the so-called tax deal.
Massive new food regulations.
It spends more on school lunches.
Remember now, school lunches, this is school breakfast, school brunch, school lunch, school snack, school dinner, and then everything else.
They want to be in charge of what kids are eating here.
This bill even regulates bake sales.
Openly gay individuals in the military against the advice of the Marines in the Air Force.
The START Treaty, massive omnibus spending bills that fund Obamacare and over 6,000 earmarks.
It goes on and on and on.
The damage being done to this country by this Congress, including a number of Republicans, is disastrous.
It is a finger in the eye of the public.
It's now them against us.
Folks, there's no way around it.
I left the broadcast complex yesterday, and I was still fuming after yesterday's program, and I was driving home, and I was really putting this in perspective, what's happening here.
We're witnessing, this is the hijacking of our country right in front of our eyes with some Republican participation.
The election results were clear.
If we were a woman and the Congress were a man, we're in the middle of being raped.
We said no in December, in November.
And we're paying for it.
We're paying to get raped.
We said no in November, i.e. the election.
We have said no at every opportunity, and yet they continue.
Right in front of our eyes.
They know it.
They know they waited specifically, as we discussed yesterday, strategically, timing-wise.
They wouldn't dare try for any of this during the year prior to the election.
They had this strategy all laid out, and here we are in the last week or so, and they try to dump all of this stuff in.
The Democrats don't care about this country, and I will plainly, I'm going to tell you that without any reservations whatsoever.
They don't care about the country.
This is all about them.
It is all about the last gasp opportunity they have to infect and poison this country with their ideology and their ideas.
They are destroying and hijacking this country right in front of our eyes.
And let's be clear about something.
Brown, Collins, Snow, other Republicans, the usual suspects in most cases, are repeatedly defying the voters.
And they pretend to be these old-fashioned fiscal conservative Yankees.
But they are big-spending, irresponsible politicians who keep larding up the deficit, undermining any notion of fiscal sanity.
And they do so under the guys, where we've got to service our constituents.
They know full well what the people of this country said.
I'm talking about now Republicans because this is not, as particularly some of these outgoing Republicans like Bennett from Utah, Voinovich in Ohio.
Some of these people are doing, they don't care, folks, they don't care about the country and they don't care about you.
And they wonder why they were defeated.
Bennett's all ticked off.
He was defeated.
I wonder if he gets any clue as to why here.
Castle, let's look at this.
Mike Castle and Bob Bennett voting as they do, voting as they are now.
Remember those who whined about taking down Bennett in Utah?
Remember all those people who whined about defeating Castle in the GOP primary in Delaware?
Oh, no, this is their taking away a golden opportunity for us to control the Senate, to win the Senate with what?
Mike Castle, one of dingy Harry Reid's most trusted allies if he got to the Senate.
He's a Republican.
All of you people out there, and you know who you are, all of you Republicans, you consultants, you glitterati inside the beltway pundits and so forth who told us just how unfortunate it was and how short-sighted it was and how childish it was to defeat trusted and loyal Republicans like Bennett and Castle.
You owe the nation an apology.
And I'm speaking of these so-called Republicans and conservatives who attacked the Tea Party and those of us who argued for defeating these utterly useless politicians.
In fact, they're worse than useless.
They're damaging.
They are harmful.
They are not Republicans except in name only.
And the bitterness and the spite that they now show as they leave town is an illustration of who they have always been.
I'm waiting, folks.
I'm waiting for the editorial praising Castle by those who dumped on O'Donnell.
I'm waiting for it.
I'm waiting for the editorial and these publications, websites demanding we defeat more of these rhinos in primary races.
Here we are, the most outrageous acts of any lame duck Congress in recent memory.
And time and again, these so-called Republicans are helping this kind of conduct and outcome.
And we were supposed to elect these people.
We were supposed to think that we needed these people to get a majority.
Yeah, right.
And had we done so, where would we be with this majority?
What kind of value would it have?
These Republicans who are cutting and running now seem to think that the politics of the times hasn't changed.
That the election doesn't mean any significant change in the country.
They seem to think that they have to pander to the left in order to be loved and liked, in order to have self-love.
They've got to pander to the left.
They have to sell out on principles to attract independent and some Democrat votes.
That's how they define their success.
They can cross the aisle.
Who wants to cross the aisle with this bunch of renegades hijacking and engaging in destruction of this country?
Why would anyone want to join them if you care a whit about the country?
I don't understand.
I'm asking this as a citizen, a full-fledged, common, ordinary, everyday citizen.
The voice of this people was loud and clear in November.
These people are not tone deaf.
I keep hearing the question.
What are they?
Tone deaf?
How do you explain?
McCain was on Hannity last night.
Hannity said, well, how do you explain this, Senator?
They are tone deaf.
I don't know, Sean.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Are they tone deaf?
I mean, they know exactly what they're doing, not tone deaf.
They didn't miss anything.
These people are bitter.
They are bitter at having been defeated, and this is their revenge.
And I wish I didn't have to stop because I'm on a roll, but I have to stop, but I won't lose my place.
I never do.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, fraud, deceit, theft.
And yeah, there are good times.
I am Rush Limblaugh.
This is the EIB Network.
There was a story in the LA Times yesterday that I was eager to get to, but events relegated this to the bottom of the stack.
It's a Los Angeles Times story by Andrea Chang.
And it is the kind of story that I love because it illustrates Ms. Chang here, I'm sure a fully accredited member of the state-controlled drive-by media, being off message.
What have we heard throughout this tax cut tax rate debate?
We've heard that the rich already have enough money.
They have more than they need, and they're not asking for tax cuts.
And furthermore, we have heard that tax cuts for the rich are not going to stimulate the economy because the rich are already spending.
They're not going to spend any more than they already are, regardless if they get a tax cut.
So what we need, we need unemployment benefit extension.
That's the kind of economic activity that will really stimulate our economy.
Unemployment benefits, extending them, yes.
And tax cuts for the middle class, because those people, they really need the money.
And when they get the money, they'll spend it immediately.
And that'll cause massive economic activity.
Luxury shoppers are making a comeback, writes Ms. Chang.
She's not getting the message.
Wait till you hear the details of this.
By the way, a minor correction.
I have a little case of verbal dyslexia.
A.B. Stoddard's first name is not Amy.
It's Alexandra.
She is the daughter of Brandon Stoddard.
Longtime inside media people recognize Brandon Stoddard was a big ABC executive.
At any rate, here is a good question in a piece by Daniel Henninger.
And you know, we admire Daniel Henninger here at the EIB network.
He has his Thursday column Wonderland in the Wall Street Journal every week.
And this column is entitled, What are Taxes For?
I saw the headline and I read a little bit of the column and I said, doesn't this sort of answer itself?
What are taxes?
He makes the point here that this is a question every presidential candidate must be forced to answer.
What are taxes for?
And he lists basically two purposes for taxes.
I think he's left out a third.
I don't know whether he intended to or not.
Well, I would just, I would add a third based on a politician such as Obama.
I don't think the two explanations or answers he gives quite, well, I know one of them doesn't for sure.
One of the answers that he offers here does not entirely cover what somebody like Obama would say, if being honest, when answering the question, what are taxes for?
We'll get to that in just a second.
Also, what do we have here?
Great new unemployment news.
3,000.
Weekly claims for jobless aid dipped by 3,000.
What is that?
60 jobs per state.
They're being heralded here as big, big news.
60 estate or 600 estate.
Regardless, back to Andrea Chang, Los Angeles Times.
Luxury shoppers are making a comeback.
High-end retailers are reporting renewed fervor for handbags, shoes, jewelry, and other indulgences at full price.
That's an encouraging sign for the overall economy.
Andrea, don't you know anything?
The rich are always buying.
That's why tax cuts to the rich won't boost the economy.
If you listen to the liberals, if you listen to Obama, the rich are always spending.
To give them any more money, let them keep more of what they earn.
That's not a stimulus to the economy because they're always spending.
And yet, we've had these stories throughout this recession.
Even the rich have dialed it back.
The rich are no longer spending in their luxury stores, and this is creating economic problems.
We've had those stories throughout.
Now, all of a sudden, tax cuts are on the table again or extending tax rates.
And we can't cut taxes to the rich.
That doesn't do anything.
They don't need any more money.
They're always spending.
They spend what they've got.
They don't need anymore.
And yet, Andrea Chang, I don't know how long she's going to have a job because she has inadvertently contradicted one of the storylines, one of the templates here of the left and the media, and that is that the rich are always spending.
Picking up a gift at Tiffany and Company can easily set you back a month's rent, but here it is on a Wednesday afternoon.
More than two dozen customers are packed around the jewelry cases at the South Coast Plaza store, eyeing $8,000 watches, $5,000 diamond earrings.
There's another crowd gathered at the Louis Vuitton boutique nearby, where popular handbags like the $690 Speedy 30 are sold out.
Over at Christian Lou, well, I'm sure you women know how to pronounce this, Christian L-O-U-B-O-U-T-I-N.
Dawn, how do you pronounce that?
Come on, you know how it's pronounced.
Don't sit there and pretend you don't know how this is pronounced.
It's a female bag.
Okay, Christian Lubutin.
I'll just say it as it looks.
It's Lubutin.
I have no clue.
Anyway, they're walking out with a pair of black leather pumps for their daughter, $630.
People are sick of saving.
It's not fun.
Said Cindy Novotny, who owns a consulting firm with her husband.
After snapping shut their designer wallets during a recession.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not true.
They didn't.
The rich spend all the time.
Obama says so.
All the Democrats say so.
They spend all the time.
What's this?
After snapping shut their designer wallets during the recession, luxury shoppers are making a big comeback.
And then she says that's, she really blowing it for these people.
That's an encouraging sign for the overall economy because affluent shoppers wield outsized spending power.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
No, folks, that can't be.
Oh, no.
And then look at this.
Was she really blowing holes in the whole Democrat Party?
The richest 20% of households account for nearly 40% of total consumer spending in the U.S.
Well, we can't give them a tax cut because they don't need it.
They've already never stopped spending.
They spend all the time.
They're not going to add any stimulus to our economic activity.
The rich aren't going to.
No, we need to get that money in the form of unemployment checks.
That's the real stimulus.
That's worth two bucks for every dollar we spend.
That's what Pelosi says.
That's what Reed says.
That's what Obama says.
And now, the LA Times, the richest 20% of households account for nearly 40% of total consumer spending.
Why, if that's true, shouldn't the rich be the focus of tax cuts?
Shouldn't we be looking at putting even more money in their hands?
Because not only do they spend on retail items at full price, it says here, they also hire people who work at their businesses.
But no, we can't do that because the rich don't need any money.
I mean, they're spending all the time.
It's not going to help anybody give the rich any more money.
No, no, no, no.
We need to put that money in the hands of the poor.
That's who drive this economy.
We need to put that money in the hands of the unemployed.
That's what drive this economy.
We need to put money in the hands of people who aren't doing anything watching soap operas.
That's what we need to do.
That's what's going to drive this economy.
Any bets on how long Andrea Chang at the LA Times has a job?
Because luxury shoppers are recovering faster than other people.
It has led to a tale of two consumers, said Doug Hart, a partner in the retail and consumer product practice at BDO.
Luxury shoppers are recovering faster than other people.
Once again, folks, you and I know this.
I'm over the top here once again to poke a hole in another giant myth, a giant lie perpetrated by the left in this country and all of their associates, the media, the Democrat Party, what have you.
For you football fans, this is interesting.
Last Sunday, the Washington Redskins played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
And the Redskins were trailing throughout the whole game.
They tied the game near the end of regulation.
In fact, it was near the end of regulation, almost at the end of regulation.
They didn't tie it.
They needed to kick the extra point to tie the game.
It's the kicking of the extra point.
I mean, 99.5% of the time.
It's automatic.
Except this was the Redskins we're talking about.
They line up for the point.
Their field goal kicker is a guy named Godot or something.
He's not having a good year.
He's missing chip shots from 25 yards, 30 yards, extra points, a 20-yard kick.
Figure even this guy, you'll do it.
The holder, Hunter Smith.
He's the punter as well.
So the snap, little bit high, went through the hands of Hunter Smith, and the Redskins lose the game.
A couple days later, the Redskins fired Hunter Smith, the holder.
Redskins holder, released for botched extra point, takes it in stride.
After Washington Redskin holder Hunter Smith botched a snap at a potentially game-tying extra point on Sunday, he knew at whom to point the finger.
If anybody needs to lose their job, it's me, he said in the locker room.
I certainly accept blame, and he got it.
Shanahan cut Smith on Tuesday, two days after the extra point, was the deciding factor in the Redskins' 1716 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
That's the way it works around Redskins Park, says this story.
You pick a scapegoat, you cut ties with him, and you move on as if that'll magically heal all the problems with the disappointing 5-8 team.
First, it was Donovan McNabb for a two-minute drill in Albert Hainsworth.
Now it's the holder whose job it was to reel in wild snaps from a young, inexperienced snapper, place the ball for a kicker who missed two chip shots in the Washington loss.
For his part, Smith, Hunter Smith, was remarkably professional, understanding.
Dan Steinberg transcribed Smith's remarks to a D.C. sports talk show in which the canned punter holder refused to pull a shanahan and pass on the blame.
He said, I don't want to make this too serious.
We're talking about football here.
But it's a moral duty on some level to tell the truth and take responsibility.
And I'm not going to go off too much on my values and things like that, but I believe, this kid's in his 20s, I believe that I'm part of a generation, really, the lawsuit generation.
Everything is somebody else's fault.
By the way, you know what the latest lawsuit is?
People are suing what?
No, the happy meal.
We knew that was coming.
The latest lawsuit thing is new car smell is making people sick and causing them to have accidents.
I kid you not.
I've got it here in the stack of stuff.
The new car smell.
New cars.
Well, you know, I have a trial lawyer who's a friend of mine.
He says, my business needs movement.
I need people moving if I'm going to stay in business.
I need people moving.
I need people having accidents.
I need people losing arms and legs.
I'm breaking legs.
I need movement.
And there's not as much movement in a recession.
People aren't driving or gasoline prices are going up.
So the trial lawyers have to get creative.
Well, some people are buying new cars, the rich, because it's Mercedes that's being sued here.
It's Mercedes for the new car smell that's being sued.
No, it's it.
No, I'm not trying to drive you crazy.
It's right here in the stack of stuff.
New car smell.
What kind of idiot would sue McDonald's for 212 degree coffee that she spills on herself and get $4 million?
New car smell, I mean, that's a fertile brand new market.
There are a lot of new cars, and all you got to do is get a hold of a client and say, look, pal, go out there, buy a new car, crack it up, and say the new car smell made you dizzy and sick and you lost your equilibrium, and we'll do a class action, and we'll win you some big money and me at the same time.
Anyway, back to Hunter Smith.
Hunter Smith says, you know, I'm part of a generation, really the lawsuit generation.
Everything is somebody else's fault.
People who are my age and a little younger, little older, want to blame somebody else.
They tend to want to self-protect, and I really reject that as a pattern of behavior and as a pattern of morality.
It's not how I'm going to live my life.
When I make a mistake, I'm going to own up to it.
And really, that's kind of what all this comes down to.
He mentioned he could have blamed the loss on the missed field goals or any one of Donovan McNabb's errant throws or interceptions.
He could have blamed it on weird play calling on the part of the offensive coordinator, or he could have blamed it on the coaching staff's bizarre first half-time management, but he didn't.
He took the high road and blamed himself.
Even though the Redskins made all kinds of mistakes where they could have won the game handily, but it came down to the last play, and the snap was a little high, but it was catchable.
But it was raining, cats and dogs.
It was pouring.
It hadn't been a whole game.
The ball was wet.
Went through his hands.
And the only saving grace was that this hapless kicker got creamed.
He ran back trying to recover the snap.
Once he put his hands on it, these defensive behemoths were free to hit him, and they did.
But at any rate, it's just refreshing.
Some guy makes a mistake.
Yeah, I own up to it.
I could have blamed all kinds of people, but I'm not going to.
He sort of did blame the other people, but he took it all on himself.
Lawsuit generation.
Everybody wants to blame somebody else, and he's dead on right.
Hunter Smith, ex-Washington Redskins, back after this.
Here are the details.
Here's the headline.
I'll give you the details on the lawsuit here in the next hour.
New car smells cited in Edwards hit and run.
This is Vail, Eagle, Colorado.
New car smells cited in Edwards' hit and run case, new Mercedes smell may have contributed to sleep apnea.
You know, it's old car smell that I hate.
I love new car smell.
I'd buy a new car every six months if I could, just for the smell of it.
All right, to the phones, we go to Payless Hill, Illinois.
And Jerome, you're up first.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, Rush?
Rush?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Hi.
I'd just like to know why in this time of economic recession, where a lot of people are laid off, that you're against extending the unemployment benefits.
Well, I have, I'm not against extending unemployment benefits.
I'm against extending them for 13 months to now three years.
See, I happen to believe that the longer people are paid not to work, the longer they won't work.
And the longer people are out of work, the more unskilled they become, or out of practice they become.
I happen to believe that there is dignity in work.
I think a lot of men derive their self-worth and their identity from their work and from their job.
And I think the Democrat Party wants as many people out of work as possible so that they will depend on the Democrat Party for what little they get.
So keep voting.
Democrats don't care about you.
Democrats care about your vote.
I think it's robbing people of their dignity.
I think it's destroying people's lives.
At some point, three years of, and it's your fellow citizens paying you not to work.
It's not the government.
It's not some nameless state official.
It's the taxes of your fellow citizens being paid for this.
Can I tell you something?
Could I tell you something for you?
Sure, by all means.
Okay, I've been listening to you for 20 years now over here, right?
I've been spreading your message and everything to many people and all that.
But now I find myself after 23 years being laid off from a company that went bankrupt and now it's probably dissolving.
And what happens is after my six months being laid off, they sent me a letter that I was going to be extended automatically.
But it's up by a year it's over.
So it's not going for three years like you're saying.
If I do get the extension, then it'll be that other 13 months like you're saying.
But right now, it's only like about a year, at least over here in the Chicago area.
No, it's for everybody.
You can get unemployment benefits up to 99 months, which...
When I first went down there, they told me 99 weeks, and then we started getting these letters, and I don't know if it's because each state has...
Okay, look, let me stop.
Can you hold on for a while here?
Because I do want to talk to you about this.
Because I understand the hardships.
I've been unemployed seven times.
I know what you're going through.
So I want you to understand why you've been listening for 23 years.
I want you to understand why I have this attitude about it.
All right.
All right.
So hang on.
Don't go away.
We've got to come back after this, folks.
Sit tight.
I'm going to have to dig deep here to find out why, but the tax bill in the House is dead for the moment.
It's been stalled.
Something about the rules.
They can't go forward.
The rules were not adopted.
Without rules, you can't proceed.
The theory behind this is that Pelosi doesn't have the votes.
And until you have the votes, you don't proceed to debate and get rules established.
So there's a minor panic going on.
▲
Export Selection