All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
June 15, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right ninety-nine point six percent of the time.
Great to have you with us, my friends, L Rushbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Happy to have you along.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282882, the email address Lrushbaugh at EIB net.com.
By the way, they just made a significant announcement in the previous hour.
The unveiling of a brand new tea made by me, too, if by tea.
From tea to shining tea.
We have two flavors, raspberry and regular diet and uh naturally sweetened and so forth.
I want I forgot to mention every aspect of this is American-made.
The bottle, the labels, the printing, the shrink wrap, the tea, every aspect of it is American made.
And we and a portion of each sale, as you know, goes to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
Now, I'm checking emails, of course, and people are encountering trouble.
Get onto the website, fine, we go to the shop to order at twoifytea.com is still problematic.
Uh folks, be patient.
It's going to be this way for a while till the original uh rush, if you will, has subsided.
Uh the big voice here combined with the size of the audience is just too large for any internet shopping cart to uh to handle at the same time.
So if you just be a little patient, you'll get in this.
This is like it's like a store having uh the single biggest sale of their lifetime, and too many people wanting to get through every possible door in the store and into the cash register at the same time.
It's just that wouldn't be possible.
It's the same way here.
So we really beg your indulgence and your patience on this.
But I just tried myself.
It took me four or five times when I did get in, and I did a full order for my because I have access, I do not have to order it.
See, I have some myself here.
As the owner of a tea, you know, I don't have to order it on a website, I got it right here.
Uh in fact, I'm gonna pour some over ice.
This is what is it, 87 in Manhattan, 95 today, 107 degrees in Palm Springs.
It's hot in a lot of places.
And I you pour this stuff over ice and you listen.
You listen to the crackle in there.
I am uh tasting right now the Diet Raspberry, which I just happen to love, but it's all.
And I slurped on purpose to make sure that you get here.
If I sipped quietly, you wouldn't know that I had.
So anyway, to if by tea.com, and there's a phone number as well, 866-662-1776.
Shipping is free.
It's three-day shipping at max and uh sold as 12 packs.
Okay.
Now we're back.
And the last call we had the guy was talking about Obama and automation and believing in ATMs are the uh pro Mike.
Do you have the soundbite with Obama making his claim about the ATM?
We just got that sound bite.
Yeah, I would here's Obama saying this, explaining why job losses have taken place.
There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.
You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM.
You don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.
Uh ATMs, automation.
All of a sudden, that's why.
There's a job problem.
This is a neophyte.
I mean, this is frankly is absurd.
Listen to Obama's keys to winning the future.
Windmills.
Trains.
No automation.
Jobs that require the use of shovels.
If you listen to what Obama says, those are the keys to job creation.
Those are the keys to winning the future.
Windmills, non existent green energy, electric cars that get 25 miles to the charge, no coal, no automation, no jobs or jobs that do require the use of shovels.
The more the guy opens his mouth about things like this, the sh the more shocking.
Uh Ladies and gentlemen, it it is in terms of what he either actually doesn't know or what he's trying to convince people.
It's just it's just amazing.
What we know is it can't go on.
I mean, this is this is uh I can't think of a greater example of having people ask, why in the world do we think politicians have all of our answers?
Why do we turn to them?
Why do we turn to elected officials?
Why are they automatically bestowed with this expert status?
He doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing.
If he's being honest with us about his objective.
If his objective is a growing economy, creation of jobs, he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's doing.
He doesn't.
And the fact that what he's done has lost jobs, and he wants to double down on it, of course, raises the question, what's he really up to?
What are his true motivations?
Here's a post from the John Locke Foundation.
There are 1.9 million fewer people employed at the end of May 2011 than there were in February 2009 when Obama's stimulus package was passed.
According to the CyberCast News Service, in February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 141.7 million people were employed.
By the end of May 2011, the last month for which data are available, that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.
Let's just round that up to two million people for the sake of discussion.
And the fact is that that outcome was completely predictable and predicted.
If I may say so myself, ladies and gentlemen, I, El Rushbow, predicted.
Not to keep rehashing this, but it's why I said I hope he fails, because I knew this would be the result of his policies.
This is liberalism slash socialism.
It doesn't work.
It uh it it destroys private sector job creation, it destroys incentive, it destroys happiness, it destroys good moods, it destroys contentedness.
It makes people universally apathetic or depressed.
And they end up what happened to my country.
What in the world happened here?
Believe all this rhetoric they hear during the campaign is gonna get better.
They bought the notion that Bush had destroyed everything.
The Bush years are the golden age, the Bush years are the good old days now.
A net loss of employment opportunities is the only logical outcome from a policy based on wealth transfers rather than wealth creation.
Simple mathematics, it's also simple physics.
You have let's say you have uh a hundred dollars, and the hundred dollars is divvied up among four people, and they each have twenty-five.
They say, that's not fair.
So you're gonna take some from one of the person got twenty-five and give it to somebody else, so that their twenty-five becomes forty-five.
So they've got forty-five, the other three have the what's what's left over?
55, they're dipping it up.
You haven't grown anything.
Somebody else, you know, one of the three has done better, but there has been no growth.
All you've done is rearrange the money.
All you've done is redistribute it.
We haven't created anything new.
There's no growth.
Um Brian Reidel at the Heritage Foundation uses the swimming pool analogy.
You know, the swimming pool.
You can take water from the deep end and put it in the shallow end, hoping the shallow end gets deeper, but doesn't happen, does it?
The volume of water in the pool doesn't change.
All you've done is rearrange the water for a while, but the volume of water had increased, the pool's not gotten bigger.
So this is just plain old common sense.
The redistribution of wealth does not cause wealth creation.
In January of 2009, right before the stimulus plan was passed, an article Was published by Ray Cordotto of the Locker Room John Locke Foundation explaining why no matter how the money was raised, taxes, borrowing, printing, no net job creation from the stimulus was possible, or should even be expected.
And it was not innovative thinking, it was just straightforward application of basic economic reasoning.
The problem is not with the details, but with the idea that government can spend an economy out of recession.
Every dollar and these people are thinking of doubling down and continuing this failed policy under the belief they simply haven't spent enough yet.
Every dollar the government funnels into the ailing economy ultimately has to be diverted from some other area of the economy.
Even if you borrow it.
If you borrow it, it means you're you're you're eliminating the opportunity for somebody else to borrow if government's the number one borrower in the country.
Little Joe Schmoll who wants to borrow for a real estate development, build a shopping center or a home site or what have you, he's gonna have a much tougher time getting the money because the government's using it all.
But there's no new growth, there's no new money.
There's a reason why all this is appealing to politicians.
Those who are employed as a result of this largesse, i.e.
the political winners, are obvious.
And everybody sees them.
News cameras can show up at the site of the government funded project and talk about people being put back to work.
Politicians can claim credit for these jobs at election time.
But there's nothing new that's happening, and there's no new growth taking place, just a bunch of photo ops.
A bunch of illusions.
Consider the subheadline on the front page of today's news and observer in Raleigh.
The president uses visit to triangle LED maker Cree to highlight economy.
But as any student who understands the most important lesson in economics can tell you, it's not just about the scene, but about the unseen.
What do you not see when they start making moves like this?
They're not creating anything, they can't.
Government can only confiscate wealth and destroy it.
They certainly can't create it, even by printing new money, as we all know that doesn't work either.
So none of what they're doing is working, and they're prepared to double down on it.
One of the, if I may go back to two, if by tea for a moment, because I've had a lot of people ask, there's been a really few small number of people who've known about this.
I haven't, I haven't told even my best friends about this, simply because I know human nature.
And this has been in the works for nine months, and odd if some giant corporate outfit found out we were doing this, they could have gotten one of these things up and running inside of a month or two.
It took us nine months, because it's, you know, we're ground floor with this, did it all ourselves.
And people say, Well, why, why, why did you do it?
You don't need to do this.
Well, you're not a tea expert.
Well, I happen to love tea.
Tea is relevant.
It was fun, but there's another reason, folks.
And it's called, if I may be so bold, leadership.
You know, I've always said, if they give a recession, I don't participate.
And I've had people respond to me in ways that are unfavorable.
Oh, yeah, well, easy for you to say.
Well, it it is easy.
It used to not be.
What I wanted to demonstrate was that even with the obstacles that we face, like Obama out there, that jobs can be created, and that growth or jobs can be saved to use his vernacular.
And a new product can be brought to market.
Not everybody wants to take the risks involved, given the economic climate that exists right now.
I fully understand that.
And this is a uh of course there's a lot of risk associated with this, but it was fun.
Plus, we got a we have a great charitable beneficiary here of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
But I've always told you what I love sharing my passions with people.
And my life has been blessed.
And I I would I wish everybody could learn at age eight what they want to do in their life like I did.
I wish everybody Could find that thing in life about which they're most passionate and be paid for it rather than have it be their hobby.
I've been very blessed.
And at the uh at the same time, it's been it's been fun to put actual political and economic policy beliefs into action.
Put them into play here.
Despite the obstacles.
And those of you who are small businessmen, you know I'm not gonna bother you with all the regulation hoops we had to go through.
DWFD, all of this stuff.
It's it's it's the legals.
It is it is it was unreal.
The option just to bring this to market.
But we did it.
We did it for the fun of it because we believed in it.
And uh and to see how it flies.
Two if by tea dot com.
And there's a phone number, 866-662-1776.
And that's all I'm gonna say about it for a while.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls are next.
Don't quote.
On the cutting edge, Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I lied.
I want to say one more thing about the tea.
It is it is just damn good.
Snerdley's in there drinking some raspberry, and he has made it a point to tell me three or four times.
Genuinely so good.
It is.
It is is the best tea I've ever tasted.
And that's it.
Otherwise, why do it?
No corners were cut.
Janet in Cleveland, I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, hello, Rush.
This is a real privilege.
Uh I'm concerned in the 208 campaign, and uh when I tuned in today, I'm concerned again, because I know the Democrat campaign strategist listen to hear what you have to say.
Mm-hmm.
And sometimes do you think you might make it too easy for them to know which exactly which points they can counter twist uh deny and lie about?
What do you mean?
You you are uh uh you say I'm giving away secrets?
Well, no, you don't have a disingenuous bone in your body.
But sometimes by saying what the campaign is doing wrong, they'll just jump in and do it right.
Just if they do something wrong, let them fall on their face.
Oh, you mean when I analyze a Democrat campaign.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Oh, when did I do that today?
What did I do that you think I should have done?
No wrong answer here.
I'm just I'm curious.
What did I what did I say today or recently that uh uh well, I guess when you were talking about uh, you know, uh Barack and Puerto Rico, I can't I can't put my finger on it exactly.
But I know uh I sent you an email once because it just struck me that you make it well, hopefully if they are listening in, they'll wise up and actually think you really think they would listen to me and take advice and think, you know, this Limbaugh, he's uh he's offering good criticism.
We've got to listen to it.
I would hope they I hope they would realize that you are making sense, but they might be listening in because I think their egos and their hubris, I think they are so arrogant and condescending.
There is no way that they're going to think anybody knows anything more than they do.
They're not gonna think anybody is smarter than they are.
They're not going to think that I have a better idea how they ought to do something than they have.
Well, I I just uh But I'll tell you what, I'll put it to the test.
The next time they do something.
The next time Obama's it does something that I think is a screw up, I'll praise it.
There you go.
That's I guess uh I I think that might work.
All right, I'll do that.
Next time Obama really screws up royally, I'll praise him.
It's gonna be hard.
It's gonna be hard to do, but uh but but I know I look at here's here's the thing.
That's a good point.
That's a good point.
I've already tried this, Janet.
Remember the day after Obama killed Osama.
I said, thank God for Barack Obama.
They believed it.
They thought that I meant it that oh wow.
Obama must have really done something good here because Limbo's uh Limbaugh's praises it.
It can work for a while.
It took them two hours to figure out.
And I think it was at the people from the hill.com finally got on to it.
Figured out that maybe I was putting them on.
David in uh Hinckley, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, this is a big pleasure for me.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, I'm gonna get to this real quick.
I'm not gonna mention any names.
I have received a letter from a lender, a very large lender in the United States.
And what they are proposing to me in this letter is that they would refinance my house even with zero equity at a hundred and twenty-five percent of the value of the home.
Now I think everybody understands, even if the interest rate went down, you've got to understand that would put a person underwater.
Yeah, but you know what they're doing, don't you?
Well, here, let me let me continue one more thing.
What they're doing is they're doing this in conjunction with the home affordable refinance program, which is HARP.
Now, when you lose that home, here's my question.
Who owns it?
The lender or the government?
One and the same, but the lender, it's it's one of the what they're trying to do with this.
I got a note from a friend of mine in banking business after listening to yesterday's program, we're talking about this Wall Street Journal piece.
Yes, in which the focus was hey, it's not it's not what we don't know policy-wise that's retarding growth.
It's what we already do know.
It's not so much uncertainty over what's coming, it's a problem with what already exists in terms of Obama policy.
And the point that he made to me was that you can do everything in the world you want.
Until there is consumer demand for anything, you're not going to have any kind of economic growth.
So offering you that deal, they're trying to get you and any number of people to take it so they can illustrate that there's some demand going on.
No, no, don't get me wrong.
There's demand in the marketplace.
There's demand for iPads.
There is demand for iPhones.
There is demand for if by T, but there is not a demand for borrowing money.
And what we're talking about investment in business growth, large or small, but primarily small business growth.
Remember now we had the the the piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Gosh, the days are running together here.
It was either yesterday or the day before.
And it was a brilliant point.
Everybody says that uh businesses are waiting to hire people or to invest in growth in other ways because they don't know what's coming down the pike policy-wise.
Health care, taxes, the the the uncertainty.
And uh, this guy's point was yeah, that's true, but there's also a lot of certainty over how rotten current policies are.
It's a double whammy.
The uncertainty over what's down the pike, but the devastating reality that the policies we currently have that this administration has put into place are not conducive to growth of any kind.
So my good friend in the uh still dabbles in a banking business, but that was the primary business, sends me this note and says, I think that too many pundits forget the intelligence of the American consumer.
Business is not going to expand, invest, or grow without demand.
Demand was slowed down by the consumers starting in 2007 as they saw the absurdities of the mortgage market.
And this uh friend of mine has two sons.
He said they played the refinance game constantly, and the mortgage brokers discounted their fees because they were repeat customers.
Uh, and although only uh uh three percent defaulted, my sons began thinking of uh selling and monetizing their gains as they realized this ever increasing valuation couldn't continue.
And they just mere examples of a larger sample of Americans who, with each refinance of their home, took on more debt at a slightly lower interest rate, but usually with a slightly very slightly increase in monthly payments.
Suddenly they took stock and they started to stop spending on other things.
Bam all Obama is elected.
This same category of American smart consumer really pulled the plug on spending and withdrew from the consuming market, even though some of them voted for him.
But even then, it was not really a vote for Obama in 2008 as it was so much a vote against Bush.
You know, just a vote for change coupled with the empty canvas Obama was, you could paint him to be whatever you wanted him to be.
So now, you know, even you you hear the the left-wing pundits from Paul Krugman to Robert B. Reich get on businesses.
Why don't you start loaning money, sitting on all this cash?
Why don't you do something?
Hire people.
As though, yeah, okay, that's all it takes.
But the point is there isn't any demand.
Before a custom or a business is going to go borrow money, there has to be consumer demand for the product.
Likewise, before somebody is going to ask for a loan to grow a business, there has to be a demand for the product or service provided that business.
And if there isn't, then all the rest of it's academic.
And that has been the problem.
And you know, there there is there is disdain for the American consumer throughout all levels of elite politics.
Republican, Democrat, and of course in Washington.
The elite look at flyover country as fly over country in every aspect of their lives.
And they do not understand the or they do not factor the real sophistication and intelligence of the American consumer when it comes to demand.
You can sit there and demand that the banks start loaning money or demand that businesses start hiring people, but if there isn't any demand on the part of the consumer, and a consumer will tell you when there's a recovery going on.
And the reason I know that there's no recovery going on that there isn't any demand.
There's demand for a few items, as I say, iPhones, iPods, uh, and now two if by T, but there is not a demand for growing businesses.
You have to as pent up frustrated desire for demand.
So uh all this relates to the last caller we had.
So he gets this note from a lending institution offering 125% value of foreign blah, blah, blah, just uh at no interest rate or whatever.
They're just trying to create activity, make it look like there's consumer demand, because they do know that with the illusion of consumer demand, and they can uh then do stories on the illusion of an economic recovery taking place.
The consumers starting to now uh overcome the fear and beginning to take the risk when it really isn't happening.
So it's uh you know, it's just it's reality is what it is, and there are a lot of people who wish to ignore it because the consumer is not the smartest guy in the room.
The consumer is always the dupe.
The consumer is always the guy in in in in eyes, the eyes of the elite, the consumer is who you trick with your advertising plan.
The consumer is who you trick with your marketing plan.
The consumer is who you um uh trick into voting for you or what have you.
There's a there's a disdain that's uh that that that's looked at, or that is that is present and looking at the uh at the consumer.
That's why all this pressure on business, oh hire people.
Doesn't have things don't happen in a uh in in a vacuum.
Anyway, uh Dawson in Waterville, Maine.
Great to have you on the EIB Link.
Hi.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Yeah.
I wanted to talk about I'm reading on the Fox website today that Pakistan has gone out and arrested five of its citizens who are working with the United States um i in regards to this whole bin Laden thing.
Yeah.
And uh you know, that I don't know what kind what this war on terrorism is coming to, but uh this is just ridiculous.
These guys were saying they were pissed off that somebody was covering this up, this bin Laden thing and hiding them.
And they said they were gonna go after these people that were hiding Bin Laden, and they're going after the exact opposite people.
They're going after the people that were helping us find Bin Laden.
And it's it's time we we cut those billions off that we're giving these people.
They're not working with us.
It's it I don't know how much more clear they can make it.
And you know, but as far as as far as I'm concerned, we should let them know we're taking our money, we're taking our military, we're going over to India, and we're gonna we're gonna still do the attacks over your borders, whether you like it or not.
And India would be more than delighted to work with us because they're still pissed off about that whole thing.
So the terrorism is a very important thing.
The problem with our relationship with Pakistan, as it's pronounced in the White House, is not Pakistan.
The problem is Obama and Hillary and a bunch of incompetence in dealing with this.
If we had some responsible people in the Intel division, we had some responsible people at uh uh at the Department of State, it'd be uh a little bit, I think a whole it'd be a much different scenario, a much different situation.
The reason why I don't think we can just tell Pakistan to go pack it in is nukes.
They have nukes.
You know, the Pakistani leaders over there have to play a little bit of a double game with their own people.
Yeah, I protecting people, uh protecting bin Laden and so forth, doing the exact opposite of what they told us that uh they were going to do.
I don't know.
That that to me is not that surprising.
We're not talking all that much money anyway here.
In terms of pulling out of the Pakistan with the money, we're not gonna make a dent in our deficit or what have you.
Uh I just I think this is largely due to who we have running the country right now.
I think we've it's just the wrong people who are not qualified, who have the entire just a incorrect world view that has informed them forever about the United States role in the world, and they're just willing for us to get stomped on because they think we deserve it.
They think we deserve to get screwed because they think we've screwed the rest of the world since our founding.
Gotta take a brief time out.
We'll be back before you know it.
El Rushbo and the Limbaugh Institute.
I think Pakistan needs to remember they're either with us or with the terrorists.
There is no third choice, but with Obama, even if he would say that, are they gonna are they gonna believe it?
I think they'd laugh at Obama.
If Obama were to say, okay, Pakistan, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
And if you choose the terrorists, then you get the drones.
Now, Obama did threaten to bomb Pakistan's nukes back in 2004, and during the 2008 campaign, he he went off the reservation.
He went wrong and he started talking about nuking or bombing Pakistan then whenever he said, What is he talking about, this neophyte?
If they if Pakistan went wrong, I mean he was it was pretty pointed about this.
But I I this is uh Well, part of it's I don't really know if it's a result of Micharping thrown out.
It's it's I'm sure that's a um uh that's a that's a factor.
Uh bottom bottom line here is is it would somebody explain to me when we have all of the sign, all the evidence of incompetence, everything this administration touches domestically.
Why do we assume they know what they're doing in foreign policy?
Well, Russia's got people there.
He's appointed people really Hillary Clinton knows what she's doing as secretary.
What is her track record?
Honest to God, folks, what is her historically successful track record in anything?
She's liv in Bosnia, whoopy doo, she's living off a reputation that she doesn't deserve, created by the left-wing media out of sympathy.
Uh I I just I don't see where we've got any adults with any competence making any of these decisions.
And I don't know why we should assume that they know what they're doing.
We'd like to for our own sense of comfort and so forth.
I want to go back to some numbers here.
When it comes to the economy, I'm gonna move back to that for just a second.
Let's let's take some of these figures, add them up.
TARP, 787 billion.
No, 800, just 700 billion was TARP, 787 billion was stimulus.
Which one of the 826?
So 826, 787.
What are we talking here?
We're uh one and a half trillion, a little over one and a half trillion dollars.
Borrowed or printed.
And then QE2.
Quantitative easing, which was another printing, and that was $630 billion.
All of it was borrowed or printed or what have you.
So $800 and $1.4.
We're looking at $2 trillion here that was borrowed.
All ostensibly to create jobs and private sector economic growth.
Two trillion dollars.
This alone should suffice as the final nail in the coffin that buries liberalism forever as an economic solution to any problem.
It won't, but it should.
How about if something else had been done instead?
Either wave for one full year all income taxes.
That's a trillion dollars.
That would be new money in the private sector, not borrowed, not not printed.
Money that is earned, not sent to Washington.
If Washington's going to go two trillion dollars in debt by borrowing or printing for TARP for stimulus and QE2.
So if they're going to go two trillion in the red, why not do this?
Waive all income taxes for one year, a trillion dollars, or give every adult in the country the money.
$150 million adults, that'd be about $15,000 each, and let's see what happens in terms of the economy.
I will guarantee you, now the starting point here, you may think this sounds ridiculous.
The starting point is that our wizards of smart and the Obama regime have made the decision that however you divvy it up, we're going to borrow two trillion dollars.
And that's going to cause job growth and economic growth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
TARP stimulus QE2.
Why don't we just do half of that in the form of a uh sunset of income taxes for a year, have that money stay in people's back pockets, and let's see what happened.
It's kind of like I had this alternative proposal in a Wall Street Journal to Obama's ideas contrasted with mine.
It was very bipartisan.
I said, okay, he won by 53%, so we're talking a trillion dollars, so he gets he gets $530 billion spent his way.
I got the balance to spend my way on tax cuts, and we'll compare which way does best in creating jobs and economic growth.
Of course, it was a brilliant column, was uh exceedingly well written.
It was totally ignored.
But this is the same same thinking here.
Keep the money in the private sector or go into debt.
You're gonna go into debt anyway, keep the money in the private sector and see what happens.
This two trillion dollars, no TARP, TARP went to banks.
It didn't go to consumers, folks.
And there's still $150 billion of TARP that's unspent.
Stimulus, we know, did not go to people.
Well, it did not, it did not go to private sector, it went to state union employees in large part for the most part, and unemployment.
And the sole reason was to keep them employed during the recession so that they would continue to pay union dues, which end up back in Democrat Party coffers, a giant money laundering operation.
It was a slush fund.
If you're gonna go two trillion dollars in debt, all I'm saying is I have a better way of putting that money to use that would really create jobs that would cause economic activity and growth out the wazoo.
Who's next?
Dan Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, sir.
And when I use a housing scenario, it's just the microcosm of the overall problem.
Uh regardless of the mortgage company or the bank and the regulation allowing no verification for qualification.
Regardless of all that, it came down to an individual at some point had to write his sign his name on the contract stating that he made money.
Regardless of the mortgage guy saying, you have to come up with 10% down if you want this $250,000 house because you only make X. If you made Y, you wouldn't have to come up with any money.
Well, that individual had to make the choice at that point to lie about it to get the house that he couldn't afford.
So a $200,000 house, and this is broad strokes, becomes worth $300 and then $400,000.
But the houses never should have been that $400,000 because the income was never there.
Now there's exceptions to people.
Okay, I'm running out of time.
What is the point?
Well, the point is the problem isn't the government.
Hold on for a second.
The government's just a symptom of the people.
I was considering running for Congress.
Okay, I know philosophically what you're saying.
People get what they want, so forth.
In this case, they lied, uh, taking lessons from the government.
But even philosophically, and with all due respect, I disagree with you.
They showed up in the first place to lie because they were lured in there with a promise they'd get money knowing full well they had no ability to pay it back.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence is in the can.
It's zipping by today, folks.
But uh many exciting moments remain.
A full hour.
Busy broadcast hour remains, and we'll get to it.
▲
Export Selection