All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
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 uh PMSNBC on.
You know, which I'm actually thinking of dumping.
And uh 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 uh a press conference, well, not a press conference, but on a uh an appearance, a statement on Afghanistan.
For crying out loud, folks, I mean, that's that's a 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.
L Rushball, the EIB Network, and the Lindboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we serve humanity simply by showing up.
Our telephone numbers 800-282-2882, email address L Rushbaugh at N 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 and the girls might actually be headed to Texas.
To uh 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.
His Bush, Gidmo 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.
Portrayus 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 DeFasio, bald-headed liberal from well, that's sorry, that doesn't matter.
Peter DeFasio, uh liberal from 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. 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're Obama's angels.
It's from the Daily Beast.
As American commanders meet this week for the Afghanistan review.
That would um that would make Bush blush.
Tim Shorok on the Blackwater Airs.
Uh 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.
This is what this is happening out there.
Let's go to the audio sound bites, 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 this guy, I guess, does a uh 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.
Uh here's uh the way hell no.
And then last night on Fox News Channel special report during the all-star panel.
The host Brett Bear spoke with the associate editor of the Hill, A.B. Stotterd.
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 AB business, obviously marketing, you know, stand out.
Anyway, she was talking about the tax rate compromise and me, and Bayer said, so blow it up.
Let the tax increase happen in January 1st.
I'm fascinated when you have Congressman Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal Grover Norquest, 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?
That's not about personalities.
You have Congressman Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal, Grover Nordquist, the entire Republican leadership up again.
Wait a minute, I thought I was the Republican leadership.
Because NPR just said that I I said hell no, and the Republican Party fell in line.
Says that I'm not in a leadership, that it's Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal, Grover Norquist up against me, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney.
Here's Defasio.
This is uh last night on CNN.
Uh it was on uh uh Spitzer and uh Ditzer, and Spitzer said, Do you have enough folks standing with you to create a a threat that this bill will not pass?
That's a good question because uh, you know, the White House is uh 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 DeFasio saying, Well, yeah, uh 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 that's if it's the end of his presidency, we don't take the deal, right?
Anyway, that's just a little uh a little review.
And here psp speaking of 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, Nyan 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.
I, you know, there's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description of elected officials is to get re-elected.
That's not our job description.
I will not slow down in terms of going after the big problems that this country faces.
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 re-election.
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 here's the thing about this.
The way you analyze this, if he really if he means this, is I'd rather be a really good one-term what term president.
What would cause him to be a one-term president?
I'd be losing his re-election battle, right?
Well, what would cause him to lose his re-election?
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.
I mean, 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's always been.
By the way, that Afghanistan presser that he had, well, wasn't a presser, this statement.
It's a 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, uh, 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 briefing on Afghanistan, then heads out to another what, holiday lunch, or what have you, and uh leaves the heavy lifting to Senators Clinton and or 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.
Uh, this is school breakfast, school brunch, school lunch, school snack, uh, school dinner, and then everything else.
They want to be in charge of what kids are eating here.
Uh, this bill even regulates bake sales.
Openly gay individuals in the military, against the advice of the Marines and 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.
That we're 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 gonna 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, Snall, 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, well, 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 got gets uh any clue as to why here.
Castle.
Let's look at this.
Mike Hassel and Bob Bennett voting as they do, voting as they Are now.
Remember those who whined about taking down Bennett and 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 won a dingy Harry Reed's most trusted allies if he got to the Senate.
He's a Republican.
All of you people out there, you know who you are.
All of you Republicans, you consultants, you uh glitterati inside the beltway, uh pundits and so forth who told us just how unfortunate it was and how short-sighted it was and and how how uh childish it was to defeat trusted loyal Republicans like Bennett and Castle.
He 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 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 just tone deaf.
I don't know, Shilling.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But 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.
Uh I am Rush Limbaugh.
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 it's it's 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 uh I have a little little case of verbal dyslexia.
A. B. Stotterd's first name's not Amy, it's Alexandra.
Uh she is the daughter of Brandon Stoddard.
Uh longtime inside media people recognize Brandon Stoddard was a big ABC executive.
At any rate, uh, here is a good question in a piece by Daniel Henninger.
And you know we admire Daniel Henniger 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 uh 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 sir for sure.
One of the uh 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 uh great new unemployment news.
3,000.
Weekly claims for jobless aid dipped by 3,000.
What is that?
Sixty jobs per state.
They're being heralded here is big big news.
Sixty estate or six hundred estate.
Regardless, uh 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 of 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, we can't, 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 any more.
And yet Andrea Chang, I don't know how long she's gonna have a job because she has inadvertently contradicted one of the storylines, one of the templates here of the left in 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 uh well, I'm sure you women know how to pronounce this.
Christian L-O-U-B-O-U-T-I-N.
Don 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.
Uh okay, Christian Le Bootin.
I'll just say it as it looks.
It's Lubutan.
I have no clue.
Anyway.
Uh 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 the recession.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, but 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.
Well, 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 gonna add any stimulus to our economic activity.
The rich aren't gonna 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 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.
But no, no, no, we can't do that because the rich don't need any money.
I mean, they're spending all the time.
It ain't gonna 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 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 and watching soap operas.
That's what we need to do.
That's what's gonna 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 as you know, 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 uh Gadeau 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 will do it.
The holder, Hunter Smith, 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 five and eight team.
First it was Donovan McNabb for a two-minute drill than 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 DC sports talk show in which the canned punter holder refused to pull a Shanahan and pass on the blame.
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 twenties.
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 gonna 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 a stack of stuff.
New car smell.
You what kind of idiot would sue McDonald's for 212 degree coffee that she spills on herself and get four million.
New car smell.
I mean, that's a fertile brand new market.
There are a lot of new cars, and all you gotta do is get 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, um, you know, I'm 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, a 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 gonna live my life.
When I make a mistake, I'm gonna own up to it.
And really, that's 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 it was uh it was catchable.
But it was raining cats and dogs.
It was pouring, it had been holding the ball was wet, went through his hands.
Uh and uh 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 uh at any rate, it's just refreshing.
Some guy makes mistake, yeah, I own up to it.
I could have blame all kinds of people, but I'm not going to.
It 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, X Washington Redskins, back after this.
Here are the details.
Well, here's the here's the headline.
I'll give you the details on the lawsuit here in the next hour.
New car smell cited in Edward's hit and run.
This is Vale Eagle, Colorado.
New car smell cited in Edward's 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.
Buy a new car every six months if I could, just for the the smell of it.
All right, to the phones we go to Paless Hill, Illinois.
And Jerome, you're up first.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, uh, Rush.
Russ.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Hi.
Uh, 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, um, I have I'm not against extending unemployment benefits.
I am 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 div derive their self-worth and their identity from their work and from their job.
And I think I think uh 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 democracy.
Democrats don't care about you.
Democrats care about your vote.
I I think I think it's robbing people of their dignity.
I I just I it I think it's destroying people's lives.
At some point, you know, three years of and and it's 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 that being paid for this.
Could I tell you something?
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 up being laid off, they sent me a letter that I was gonna be extended automatically.
But it's up by by a year, it's over.
So it's not going for three years like you're saying.
Well, you've got to if I do get the extension, then it'd be about it'd 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 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 uh we start getting these letters, and I don't know if it's because the each state has been.
Okay, look, let me let me 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 under 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 to uh 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 gonna 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.
Uh 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 and uh get rules established.
▲
Export Selection