All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:51
April 21, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to play this soundbite again.
Because my friends, I think this sound bite is full of it.
Well, now the soundbite, it'd be a little bit hard for the soundbite to be full of it.
Obama is full of it on this soundbite.
Some unbelievable things here, especially contrasting what we know and what he wrote about in his book.
So here we go.
This is last night in Palo Alto at headquarters of Facebook.
Obama here explaining that he is a product of the welfare state.
Their basic view is that no matter how successful I am, no matter how much I've taken from this country, I wasn't born wealthy.
I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents.
I went to college on scholarships.
There was a time when my mom was trying to get her PhD where for a short time she had to take food stamps.
My grandparents relied on Medicare and Social Security.
Their notion is, despite the fact that I've benefited from all these investments, somehow I now have no obligation to people who are less fortunate than me.
Now, that really is convoluted.
It's filled with bitterness and resentment, and it's also filled with illogic.
If we are to believe this, then we are to believe that Obama has never had an entrepreneur in his family.
He's never had an individualist, never had anybody who took care of themselves.
And he uses himself as an example here, his upbringing.
You see, this is part of the problem.
His experience, according to what he said there at Facebook, his experience is the welfare state.
His adult career has been about expanding the welfare state, whether as a street agitator, community organizer, or president.
So he's projecting his experience and background, which is that of a taker and user, on the rest of society.
There's virtue in taking.
There's virtue in using.
My family wouldn't be anywhere without it.
I wouldn't be anywhere without it.
And rather than have some appreciation and gratitude for those who paid into the system and subsidized him and his family, he harbors this deep resentment.
That's what's convoluted about.
Wouldn't a guy who makes this statement to a bunch of young skulls full of mushroom Facebook show some appreciation?
No, no appreciation.
He resents the workers.
He resents those who paid into the system.
Don't forget, this is a guy who has a brother who still lives in a hut.
As far as we know, he has yet to send him anything, including a little science hut, sweet hut.
There has not been a hut warming party, nothing.
However, is all of this true?
Damn right, I question this.
There is no record anywhere that Obama's mother was ever on food stamps.
Remember, his mother was the vice president of a bank.
Stick with me on this.
His mother was the vice president of a bank.
His stepfather was a grandmother.
Grandmother was a vice president of a bank.
His father was an executive for an oil company.
Now, Obama never mentioned his mother being on food stamps in either of the books that he wrote, either of his navel-gazing autobiographies.
He never once mentioned his mother being on food stamps, which, if it's true, is very hard to believe.
Also, for what it's worth here, Obama was not living with his mother when she was trying to get her PhD.
He was living with his grandmother, who was a vice president of one of Hawaii's biggest banks.
So why was mom on food stamps while grandma was a VP at a big bank?
Because she was in college.
I don't know if that's even legal.
And while all this was happening, Obama was attending one of Hawaii's most expensive prep schools while mom was supposedly on food stamps.
So we don't even know what about this soundbites true.
I don't know how many of these questions he got were genuine or how many of them were scripted because he had various things he wanted to say.
But folks, he wanted to rip into people.
He wanted an excuse to rip into people who he wanted to characterize as being opponents of the kind of welfare state that he wants to create.
Don't forget, he wants everybody to have to go through the same process that he claims his family went through.
I mean, let's review this.
I went to college on scholarships.
Time my mom was trying to get her PhD.
For a short time, she had to take food stamps.
My grandparents relied on Medicare and Social Security.
His family had the means to provide for themselves, and yet they went the food stamp route.
His family's got a brother living in a hut.
Now, if also, folks, if Obama is serious here about the need to give back, then why didn't he pay the full 35% tax rate on his income last year instead of settling for the 27% that his accountants cooked up for him?
He only paid 27%.
He could have paid 35%.
So, I don't care how you look at this.
If you believe what Obama's saying, there's nothing about which, let's stand up and cheer.
If this thing is chock full of lies, then that speaks for itself.
You know, I can remember, and I always said when I was young that when I got old, I was not going to be an old footy-duddy.
I was not going to be the kind of person.
When I was growing up, I got so sick and tired of my parents and grandparents.
You had to walk to school in the snow with no shoes.
You should be thankful for a ride.
Well, I knew I wasn't going to be walking 10 miles to school in the snow, so I got sick and tired of hearing that.
So I figured that when I get their age, I'm not going to use that kind of talk on young people.
Well, got to make a little bit of a change here.
As I remember, you know, I've been fired seven times, fired seven, out of work seven times.
One of those times, I went on unemployment compensation.
And folks, I know I'm opening myself up here, but I was embarrassed.
There was a stigma to, yeah, yes, even unemployment.
Well, because there shouldn't be a stigma attached to it.
You paid into it, and you probably didn't deserve to be fired.
Well, in my case, I'm sure they think I did deserve to be fired.
But regardless, back then, It was a stigma to be known as somebody on quote-unquote relief.
I'm talking about the 70s.
You know, 35 years ago, there was a stigma to welfare this guy.
Today, there's none of here.
Obama is out here applauding that as the pathway.
This is the greatness of America right here.
He tells this story as a means of explaining why America is great, but there's not one syllable worth of appreciation for the people working who made all of these benefits for him and his family possible.
All there is is a bunch of resentment.
And for some reason now, it becomes more and more clear as this guy speaks more and more, becomes clear that what his agenda is, is somehow he's got an animus toward those who made it possible.
Now, why would that be?
Let's say that this, to take it hypothetically, is true.
His poor mother trying to get her PhD was on food stamps while his grandmother worked at the bank and his stepdad ran an oil company.
Why harbor resentment?
Why not thank the people whose taxes made possible the Social Security and the Medicare and the food stamps and whatever else they accessed and then demand more and then somehow claim that America is unfair because of it.
And now what is obvious to me is that this guy harbors a deep resentment about all this rather than an appreciation.
And this chip on his shoulder, which got a lot more on it than just this story, I mean, there's a racial component, as you know, and other elements.
Now he sees a need to get even with this country, or this country needs to be gotten even with itself.
Regardless, this is illogical, irrational, convoluted, delusional, angry.
Food stamps are not a badge of honor.
We advertise their availability.
We advertise the availability of food stamps.
Extending unemployment compensations is the essence of benefits, essence of compassion.
It's the essence of how we as a society show we care.
What are we doing?
We're destroying the whole concept of work.
Purposefully, I think.
All right, it's the Rush Limbaugh program.
I don't want to waste time at the beginning of this hour introducing the program because you know who I am and you know what we do here.
Brief time out.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Okay, let's grab a phone call or two quickly.
There's still more Obama bites and a pretty good soundbite roster yet to come.
I may not do any more Obamas.
I don't know how we improve on number nine.
But we will look at the list nevertheless.
Start in Houston.
John High, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush, what an honor to speak with you.
Cut 9 was a great, great soundbite, fired me up.
And my point is, some of us are givers our entire lives and we never take.
Every other week we give, we give, and we're not giving back.
We're just giving.
And you're the cowards.
In his world, you are the cowards.
Well, I'm a little scared talking to you, but that might be cowardly.
You needn't have any fear talking to me here.
None whatsoever.
Well, it's just, you know, even President Obama gives back every other week, you know, in his paychecks, and we don't complain.
It's not that we don't want to give, it's that we don't want to give any more than we already are giving.
Well, there's another aspect to this, too.
What did he talk about on this bite?
He talks about food stamps.
What does this have to do with anything?
Is somebody proposing eliminating food stamps?
He's talking about reforming it.
Is he talking about eliminating Fouston?
No.
Is he talking about eliminating student loans?
No, of course not.
Where is the proposal that Obama's rebutting here?
So, once again, nobody's talking about eliminating the program, and Obama wants you to think so.
That's courage, folks, lying to you about what's in the Ryan budget.
That's courage.
With that answer, trying to make you think the food stamp program's up for grabs here.
Student loan program up for grabs.
Is somebody proposing eliminated Medicare?
He made a big deal about the grandparents of Social Security Medicaid.
Is somebody talking about eliminating it?
No.
What Ryan wants to do is come up with a way to make it solvent and sustainable.
It's filled with common sense.
So, Mr. Courageous, Mr. Bold, Barack Obama arguing about something that's not even happening.
The efforts that he is obstructing here are attempts to control massive, unsustainable spending since he was elected.
We're talking about his effort to spread the wealth.
We're talking about his massive new entitlements.
We're talking about a bloated bureaucracy.
And Obama does not want to talk about any of that.
So he changes the subject.
And he tries to boldly go where every liberal tries to boldly go, and that is accuse us of wanting to take away food stamps and take away the student loan program and take away Medicare.
Food stamps, unemployment benefits, compensation benefits have expanded under Obama for one reason: the misery that his policies have created.
If there is one thing, if there is the expansion of one thing that overrides all other things and creates other expansion, it is the expansion of misery.
Obama's policies have multiplied misery in this country to the likes of which we've not seen it.
Now, he thinks that the welfare state should replace capitalism.
That's what he's arguing for here.
That's what soundbite number nine is.
Look at me.
Look at I got here.
And that's what made the country great.
That's what he thinks.
Greatness.
Greatness is because of stuff that enabled him to go to school and his family to eat or what have you.
Well, what he's arguing for is a permanent welfare state that is the country.
That's what he's doing.
And that's why he's not talking to adults.
That's why his audience is much kids, either at community colleges or Facebook friends or whatever.
Because after all, most of them are still on the take.
They understand it.
They're not finding for themselves yet.
They're still in school or still, you know, in the midst of the idealism of the world being one giant utopia.
So here comes the guy who claims he's got the recipe to create it.
That's why he seeks those audiences.
Let's grab audio soundbite number 10.
After number nine, which we've pretty well dissected, he segued into Medicare.
And here comes the comment about how we want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
They're saying is somehow some remote bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you.
All we're saying is if we've got health care experts, doctors and nurses and consumers who are helping to design how Medicare works more intelligently, then we don't have to radically change Medicare.
I think it's fair to say that their vision is radical.
No, I don't think it's particularly courageous.
Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor or people who are powerless or don't have lobbyists or don't have clout.
Utter BS.
Their vision is radical.
Reforming a program to sustain it.
Reforming a program to where it's paid for is radical.
Oh, no, that's not courageous.
Nothing easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor.
How about nothing easier than destroying a country on the backs of people who aren't even born yet, so they can't even oppose it?
How about the courage of raising taxes on people who have not even been conceived?
How about raising taxes and spending the earnings of people who are not even a thought yet in the minds of their future mom and dad?
How about that for courage?
What kind of courage is it to end up with an effective tax rate of 72 to 75 percent to pay for all of this and set it up so that people who are not yet born are going to have to pay that?
People not yet born who cannot even oppose you.
That's courage.
That's greatness.
Sorry.
Who's next?
Tom Central Virginia.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Wonderful to have you with us.
Thank you very much, Rush, for taking my call.
I'm just on my way between meetings doing my part to pay for somebody else's slack off for a little while longer.
I called for a reason.
I really appreciate your crack research staff.
Juan, Mr. Snerdley, check the dates out for me.
But if you would indulge me for just a moment on soundbite number 10, there was one key point that just gets under my nerves.
The fact that what Obama is doing is intelligent, that infers that what anybody else is trying to do is unintelligent.
And that just gets on my nerves beyond belief.
But the reason I called, I was, when I was a child, I had a single mom for quite a while as well.
I was born in 1960.
I believe Mr. Obama was born in 1964.
I specifically remember no food stamps.
We had to go down to the welfare office to pick up our government cheese and our government powdered milk and our government powdered eggs.
We were not handed coupons to go to the grocery store to go shopping.
I do believe Mr. Obama, being nearly the same age, probably, if his mother at all was on some form of government assistance, would have had to go down to the welfare office to do the same.
Mr. Snerdley looked it up and he said that the food stamp program was initiated in 77.
That would have made Obama 13.
It's plausible.
Wait just a second here.
Wait just a minute.
Did I just hear you correctly?
I believe you did, Rush.
You said that Snerdley told you that the food stamp program was created in 1977.
That's your crack research staff.
Right.
Yep, that's I so I find it hard to believe that his mother was on food stamps when the program at that time was the welfare office.
Right.
The coupons, the coupons were enacted in 1977.
Right.
How long are you going to, you've been on hold for how long?
You've been on hold here for 10 minutes.
So Snerdley has known something he could have told me for 10 minutes, but waited for you to get on the air to tell me so that you could claim credit for it.
Well, we've got a lot of people.
As though Snerdley was doing research for you, a caller, rather than for me.
It was, it was this has been, this is one of the most fair.
Go ahead.
You can talk your way out of this, but there's no way that you two can slither out of this one.
I caught you.
All right, further research.
There was a food stamp program with coupons in 1965, but only for 22 states.
So we're trying to find out if Hawaii was one of those 22 states.
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 went into effect in 1965, but the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources says only 22 states participated at that time.
We don't know yet if Hawaii was one of them.
We're going to find out.
New York Post, page six today.
Headline: Trump blasts Seinfeld pullout.
Donald Trump was not laughing when Jerry Seinfeld canceled an upcoming appearance at a benefit for his son's Eric Trump Foundation.
Seinfeld pulled out of a September 13th event benefiting the St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital because he disagrees with the Donalds questioning Obama's citizenship.
Trump fired off a letter to Seinfeld yesterday.
It reads in part: I just learned you canceled a show for my son's charity because of the fact that I'm being very aggressive with respect to President Obama, who's doing an absolutely terrible job as our leader.
We don't care that you broke your commitment, he wrote, even though the children of St. Jude are very disappointed.
And despite the fact that your manager clearly stated that you are truly a man of his word, what I do feel badly about is that I agreed to do and did your failed show, The Marriage Ref, even though I thought it was absolutely terrible.
Despite its poor ratings, I didn't cancel on you like you canceled on my son in St. Jude.
I only wish I did.
Trump's letter to Seinfeld ends with a big kiss off.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Seinfeld's spokesman said, Yeah, he's grown increasingly uncomfortable with Trump's questioning of Obama's citizenship.
Jerry feels this kind of demagoguery has no place in public discourse.
He has respectfully withdrawn from the event, is making a contribution both to the Eric Trump Foundation and to St. Jude's.
It's his son's event, I know.
It's Eric Trump's event.
Donald, better get used to this.
This is just step one in these Hollywood leftists abandoning you this way.
This is how it works.
The substance of what you're doing, Donald, doesn't matter to them.
It doesn't matter.
Not whether you're right, whether there's anything to what you're saying.
How dare you is their reaction.
You're going against the one.
You're making it very Seinfeld.
Donald, you have to understand, has to have his self-respect maintained.
He wouldn't get any more gigs.
He wouldn't get any more cocktail party invitations.
He wouldn't be beloved if he went and showed up for your son's charity event after this.
He has to do this to protect his status in the left-wing entertainment hierarchy.
Sandy in Madison, Wisconsin, as we go back to the phones.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
No, thanks so much, Rush.
Love your commercials.
We need the comic relief and tweaks of the liberals.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, I want to just take a moment real quickly to thank all those taxpayers for their voluntary and involuntary contributions because that gives my husband his salaries via grants.
He works at the University of Wisconsin as a researcher and a hematologist.
Yeah, it's not, hey, it's not just your husband.
Don't forget Anne Zatudi.
Anne Zatudi living in Boston on public handouts.
And she wasn't even, you know, during a time when her citizenship was questioned.
She's living on public handouts here and in the U.K.
Well, my husband can't seem to get a grant under Obama, but he did get one under Bush.
So what is your husband researching?
Well, he's in clotting factors.
He treats, he attends, takes care of in the hospital every two weeks.
Man, I never knew.
So primarily he's a researcher, a scientist.
I never knew that blood clots were partisan to the left.
If you're a liberal researcher blood clot, you get the money.
Well, he's not in the line here, but Obama is the great thinker, and he's very thrilled to have one in there.
Right.
So he would probably divorce me if he knew I was talking to you.
He hates you, and he despises Fox News, but hey, what can I say?
Wait a minute.
Your husband?
Yes.
Your husband hates me, despises Fox News.
Yes.
Obama's cut him off and he hates me.
Yes, yes, yes.
But anyway.
Introduce him to Jerry Seinfeld.
Anyway, I am just so thrilled to talk to you.
Over the years, I laugh and just chuckle.
And so I want you to not write off this Supreme Court judge.
It is crazy what they're doing.
This is Florida all over.
They want to hand count all these votes and pick at it as they can.
Their delay tactics.
It is just unbelievable.
You're talking about the Joanne.
Kloppenberg.
Yes.
I mean, the woman is just, oh, she just looks like a turkey, a buzzard.
And she has, as an environmental lawyer, she took five years of taxpayer money to destroy this restaurant owner on a taxpayer dime.
So she has no problems taking the taxpayer money for this recount.
But they just, this is Obama's backyard, and he is just pissed off.
It's like Walker winning like Bush did from Gore.
They are so mad.
Well, I know that Klappenberg, I've always thought that name sounds like something you would step in.
But she lost the election by 7,316 votes.
And she's demanding a recount, has asked election officials for a statewide recount.
She did this yesterday.
The final county tallies show that Prosser leads by 7,316 votes over Klappenberg.
The margin is within one half of 1% of the total votes cast, entitling her to a statewide recount at local government expense, meaning taxpayers.
That stuns me.
The 7,000-vote margin is grounds for a recount.
But since they're going to start the recount, if they're going to bring the Al-Franken lawyer in from Minnesota to do this, the way this works, it is Florida 2,000 all over again, and they are going to find votes.
You just know they're going to find votes here and there.
But I don't know how many times I've pointed out, you know, this is a tipping point in the culture battle in this country.
This is where Wisconsin is where this is going to be decided.
There are going to be ancillary fights as well in Indiana, Ohio, and other places.
But the Klappenberg crowd, they know what's at stake here, and that's why they're going to fight this.
And are we prepared to fight it the way they are going to?
See, losing elections is not possible.
That cannot have happened.
That's why this investigation is due.
We don't lose elections.
Republicans don't win elections.
Something's something.
Now, we, you know, Mr. and Ms. Civics 101, we campaigned.
We win the election.
Hey, okay, and now you guys have to go along because we won.
No, no, no.
You didn't win anything.
This election's not over until we say it is.
And we especially don't lose elections that we've rigged.
And we rigged this one, and somehow we just haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet, but give us time.
And that's what this adds up to.
But the reaction, Ms. Kloppenberg, why can't you just go away?
That's the wrong reaction to have.
Losing an election for the Democrats, that's just the first step.
They factor that in.
What's got them really peeved here is they have this one rigged.
They don't lose elections that they rigged.
They've lost this rigged election.
That's got them really bamboozled.
I appreciate your frustration.
We here at the EIB network will, of course, continue to monitor this as it unfolds.
Ron on the left coast.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hail Augustus Lombanius, I don't know why you want to say that.
Hey, Rush, I work for a tax agency, and I used to be a tax collector.
And I believe the whole federal welfare argument is really skewed.
What is a tax agency?
You work for the government?
It would be either working for the IRS or one of the state agencies.
I see, okay.
You don't want to specify, but you work for a tax agency.
I just wanted to make sure I understood it right.
Yes, sir.
You didn't want to get an HR block or something like that.
You work for a taxing authority.
I work for the government.
Okay.
And I really believe the whole welfare, federal welfare argument is skewed.
Case in point, my brother and I both have lots of kids.
Each of us have lots of kids.
We both work.
And each year we receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds simply because we have children.
Yet my brother believes, he's an ardent liberal and I'm not.
He believes that corporations get all the welfare in the world, if you will, and that nobody else really does, especially that we don't.
So I asked him, I said, okay, what's welfare?
Isn't it getting money you didn't earn?
Somebody else is paying that money and you're getting it.
And I asked, I said, hey, are corporations getting welfare?
Well, no, they're getting to keep more of what they earn.
Instead, us, him and I, because we have kids, we're getting tax, they're called tax refunds.
We're getting refunds on money we never paid in, and it's thousands of dollars every year.
What's he say to that?
Oh, my goodness, he went nuts.
He went ballistic, but he couldn't argue the logic of it.
And again, I've worked for a tax agency.
I bring in revenue, tax revenue.
And now, one thing that's important to say is that I'm grateful for this money.
It actually helps me provide for my family.
It encourages people to have kids, maintains the workforce.
Our workforce is already shrinking.
But at the same time, it's only right to acknowledge, hey, we're getting money.
We didn't pay in, and this is what it is.
And I don't think it's right to go after corporations and call it welfare.
That's disingenuous.
That's a tactic.
It's a tactic trying to create more and more thinking like your brothers.
You're just trying to create more and more of your brothers with that kind of rhetoric.
Absolutely.
What's sad is that, like, in terms of, I won't mention, there's a lot of people, unfortunately, that have certain situations in their life, whether it be multiple children, I have a bunch, and I support my kids.
I've worked.
I went to college.
I paid my own way.
But many people, I don't want to be too specific, but they seem to look for every angle to get, get, get, get, get.
I wouldn't worry about saying that.
I mean, you know, you're dealing with it firsthand.
There are scam artists out there that game the system and not just.
But they don't say thank you, and they expect it.
They absolutely expect it.
It's like they're right.
And it's like, well, how was that so?
Well, of course.
Well, you heard Obama sound by nine.
He doesn't thank anybody.
One quick question before you go here.
When you explained the logic of this to your brother and convinced him that he was getting money that he hadn't paid, that he was getting money essentially given to him by others, did you say he couldn't refute that?
No, he went through all this.
You know how things go when things like that get too close and personal to what it went against what he didn't want to believe.
Like in the book, Dune, it says what the mind can't encompass or agree with, it automatically rejects.
Okay, so he rejected it.
He didn't want to go there?
Well, what he said is, look, I pay taxes, and what he was talking about, really, in my brother's case, is that he does.
He has tax withholdings.
And so every year he can file his tax return.
But that's true, but I told him, I said, the difference is, is you opt to have your taxes withheld because he has so many children, he actually is tax exempt.
He does not have to file, or he doesn't have to have a zero bit of withholding from federal or state every paycheck.
Good Lord.
How many kids are we talking about here, 10 or 11?
All you need is like between three and five, depending on your income.
He has five.
And so he paid zero in tax every paycheck.
And I said, but corporations, I said, that's your option.
And what you're doing is you're using that money as a big cushion.
So at the end of the year, you file your returns and you get all this money.
Money you opted to pay in, but you didn't have to.
And I said, corporations don't have that opportunity.
They have to pay their quarterly accounts.
That's my money.
My point is you hit him between the eyes.
You said you're getting money back that's essentially not yours.
Correct.
Now, if he were to be...
He didn't like that because it went against his beliefs.
Why?
He's a big welfare guy, right?
He believes in it.
Pretty much.
Well, okay, you just called him a welfare recipient.
You just said, hey, you're making it like a man like the corporations do and so forth.
If he decries it, if he doesn't like the corporations getting all this welfare, have him give him the money back.
Of course, they won't do, because at the end of the day, it's always about the money.
Back after this.
Don't ask me.
I don't know about kids and taxes.
Snirdley wants to know if it can be with more than one woman.
I have no clue.
I don't know if you can have 10 kids with three women and collect 15 kids with three.
I don't know how it works.
Because missing from my equation is kids.
Well, plus, wouldn't I want them just for the deduction?
No, I would not want.
No.
Would I want kids just for the deduction?
No, B.S.
Don't tell me I wouldn't have to pay tax.
If the deduction for kids is such that if you're not paying any taxes because the number of kids you have, your income is not all that high to begin with.
Don't tell me that I wouldn't be paying any taxes.
If you're telling me that if I went out and had five kids and I have no taxes, now we might talk.
But I know that that's not the case.
Don't even go there.
Wait a minute.
We're still trying to get the bottom of this food stamp business.
Like I'm looking at a story now.
The first food stamps actually passed out during the Depression, 1939, name of the woman who got them.
Now, the first time they were free where you didn't have to pay a portion of it with the coupons was 1977.
But there were food stamps in years prior to that, but you had to contribute to it.
And I remember Obama was willing to slash funding for food stamps to pay for one of his bailouts for the states, if you recall.
We need to find that because if anybody has proposed cutting food stamps, it was Obama.
Same thing with $500 billion in Medicare cuts.
It was Obama who's proposed those two things.
I asked earlier after playing Soundbite No. 9, who's talking about this?
He's out there celebrating the fact that we've got food stamps, we've got Medicare.
I said, who's cutting them?
Somebody show me where there's a plan that cuts them or eliminates them.
And there isn't, of course.
And then I remembered it was Obama who proposed $500 billion in Medicare cuts to get his health care bill come in in total cost under a trillion dollars.
And he has proposed cutting food stamps.
Here was, it's August 14th of 2010 from thehill.com.
Democrats may use food stamp money to pay for Michelle Obama's nutrition initiative.
That's what it was.
Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to pay for a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of First Lady Muchel Obama.
Well, Shazam, as Gomer Pyle used to say, the Democrats in Obama slashed the food stamp program to pay for a bailout for one of the states and for a program of Muchell Obama's.
The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6% food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state.
That was the second stimulus.
That's right.
The second stimulus in order to pay for it, Obama was proposing cutting food stamps on top of $500 billion in Medicare cuts.
That's right.
Okay, the second hour now officially in the camp, but yes, you heard right.
Proposed cuts in food stamps on top of a 13.6% food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and Education state funding bill that Obama signed back in 2010.
The story in the Hills is the Democrats reluctantly slashed the food stamp program to fund a state bill, aid bill, basically a bailout.
It was stimulus two at $26 billion.
▲
Export Selection