All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:44
October 19, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchorman filling in.
No supporting paperwork whatsoever.
Rush returns.
Rush returns live tomorrow at 12 noon Eastern.
And I have to scuttle on down to Massachusetts for a weekend shift as Mitt Romney's lawnboy.
Odd story out of San Antonio.
An attempted break-in at a courthouse in downtown San Antonio triggered a bomb scare and FBI terror investigation early Wednesday morning, according to WOAI radio.
The pair, along with another man, the pair men arrested, along with another man, are all described as French Moroccan Muslims, and they're being questioned by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
It's interesting, this Iranian, along with this Iranian plot that was busted up.
If you don't secure the southern border, the idea that it's just people coming here to do the jobs that Americans won't do is ridiculous, because eventually people here who are going to come here are going to want to blow up the Americans who won't do the jobs that Americans won't do.
And that's the upshot of the Iranian plot.
That was actually the upshot of 9-11 when the guys who boarded the plane that flew into the Pentagon got on board that plane with fake ID issued by the day immigrant, daytime agricultural workers, day workers network in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven in Falls Church, Virginia.
And yet we still do nothing about the border.
We're not serious about the border.
And if you're not serious about your border, eventually you don't have a country.
And so the idea that this isn't these arguments about 15 years to build a border fence and the Great Wall of China, they're not theoretical.
They're actually relevant to what's going on.
They were relevant to 9-11.
They're relevant to this Iranian plot.
And when we find out how these supposed French Moroccan Muslims entered the country and got to San Antonio, they may well prove relevant to that San Antonio story, too.
That's breaking news out of San Antonio this morning.
Breaking news out of Seattle.
Amanda Knox.
Amanda Knox has been seen at the Occupy Seattle protest.
She walked hand in hand with best friend Madison Paxton.
Madison Paxton, wasn't she Blake Carrington's mistress on Dynasty?
What a great name.
Madison Paxton.
She and Amanda Knox were seen strolling hand in hand at the Occupy Seattle protest.
At the Occupy Salt Lake City, the Occupy Salt Lake City protesters took over Pioneer Plan, Pioneer Park, to focus on corporate corruption.
But they're now locked in a class privilege dispute between the middle-class deadbeats of the Occupy Salt Lake City movement and the homeless, and the homeless derelicts and the drug dealers who live in the park.
So the homeless guys and the drug dealers resent the fact that a lot of pampered middle-class college sissies are now turning up and have taken over their park.
And one of the homeless people has put up a sign saying, welcome to Occupy the Homeless.
We've been trying to do everything we can to integrate both groups together and be cooperative, said Alexandra Fabella, a spokeswoman for Occupy Salt Lake City.
But at this point, they haven't been able to.
The homeless and don't apparently want to integrate with the Occupy Salt Lake City people.
For one thing, the Occupy Salt Lake City people have a far lower standard of personal hygiene.
So there seems to be a lot of conflict in this tragic to report at Occupy Salt Lake City, where Occupy Salt Lake City is now Taking the homes of the homeless and the drug dealers in Pioneer Park.
Tragedy, that.
The city of Los Angeles, Occupy Los Angeles, which sounds marginally less risible than Occupy Salt Lake City.
Don't ask me why.
But Los Angeles city officials who were assiduously wooing the Occupy Los Angeles movement, they've taken over the grassy area around City Hall in Los Angeles, but they're now beginning to back away from them.
Previously, Council President Eric Garcetti told Occupy Los Angeles that the tent community could, quote, stay as long as you need to.
And they've allowed the urban camp out to continue, despite a law prohibiting overnight stays at city parks.
Oh, this is amazing, isn't it?
Los Angeles, California has laws against everything.
But if you happen to be politically congenial to them, those laws don't matter for anything.
And Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Villaraigosa, Villaraigosa, he gave 100 ponchos to soggy demonstrators during the last big rain.
This is like a broke city, broke state.
But they've got 100 ponchos to give to the Occupy Los Angeles protesters to keep them out in the rain.
That's very nice and multicultural, isn't it?
100 ponchos.
But they're now backing away because Occupy Los Angeles' big theme is cracking down on wrongdoing by banks.
And on Tuesday, the city administrative officer Miguel Santera said that cracking down on wrongdoing by banks could cost the city at least $58 million.
So, you know, so they're now backing away.
They may be asking for the ponchos back, but they gave 100 ponchos to SOGI demonstrators and they waived the no overnight stay.
Maybe they should try that in Salt Lake City and then those middle-class college kids wouldn't be taking the poor old homes from the homeless there.
By the way, I'm not sure how many people know this, but this whole thing, this is the most pathetic revolution in history.
Robespierre would have no time for these guys.
Lenin would have no time for these guys.
Mao would have no time for these guys.
These big sloth demonstrations, the big sloth movement.
And it's not even American.
This whole thing was cooked up by the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation.
That's Vancouver as in Vancouver, British Columbia, by the way.
That's as in Vancouver, British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.
What has it come to?
What has it come to?
What is the state, the pitiful state of America's rebellious youth when America's rebellious youth have to basically just be lame southern frontmen for what is essentially a Canadian rebellious youth movement?
This is pathetic.
Talk about doing the jobs that American rebellious youth won't do.
Why can't America now develop its own?
Is there nothing?
You know, it's bad enough having all these British TV shows all over American TV.
It's bad enough having every dam on the Connecticut River owned by a Canadian company.
But now even youthful rebellion, even the revolution, has to be outsourced to Canadians.
This is disgraceful.
This Occupy Wall Street movement must be the dumbest revolution out.
The problem with Occupy Wall Street, by the way, isn't hard to figure out.
It's that it's got no solution to these things except more government, more government.
They're anarchists for big government.
They want to stick it to the man.
On the one hand, they want to urinate and defecate all over police cruisers.
But on the other hand, they're saying we need a bigger government budget.
They're sticking it to the man by asking the man to write them a bigger check.
It's the most pathetic revolution in history.
And it doesn't get to what we were talking about in the last hour, which is the real crisis of America, that we're bifurcating, I think, into something closer to a Latin American society.
We're basically, to put it in Ron Paul terms, we're basically heading for an Perenniste, Argentinian future, but with on a Roman Empire scale.
And that ain't going to be good.
That ain't going to be pretty.
Where you'll have a terribly corrupt elite at the top and a great seething mass of dysfunction underneath and no middle class.
If you've got your workarounds, like those people that Obama parties with on Martha's Vineyard, if you're in the Martha's Vineyard crowd, if you're on the right side of the Martha's Vineyard border fence, you'll be okay.
But in the great seething mass of dysfunction outside, it's not going to be pretty because we're at war with the middle class.
A lot of things are just seizing up, seizing up in this country.
I'd cause to pay a few visits to pharmacies in the last week or so.
And I'm astonished at the inability to fill a routine prescription in expeditious time.
I was at Kinney Drugs, big chain pharmacy, in the drive-through lane, sitting there waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting.
And eventually the lady comes back and says there's a problem on the old insurance card.
I'm picking up prescription for a friend.
I say, well, nuts to that.
I don't care.
I'll pay cash.
Oh, by the way, her first thing after she said there was a problem on the card is that they could sort it out if I drove around the back of the drive-through lane and rejoined the line.
So by now, there's like five cars sitting in there.
You think of the economically productive man hours.
It doesn't matter, even if we're all minimum wage workers, add up the amount of time we're all sitting there waiting for prescriptions to be filled.
Come around.
So she said we can come around the back of the building and rejoin the end of the drive-through lane.
At that point, I say, to hell with this, I'll just pay cash for the prescription.
And she goes off, says that's all.
She's going to have to re-enter the paperwork, do it on this basis, do it on that basis.
I'm thinking, oh, well, this must be some very expensive drug or something.
And it's going to be $300.
It turned out to be like $20, $20.
I'd sat in line for three-quarters of an hour to get a $20 prescription paid.
Next time around, at the hospital, and the doctor says, well, use the hospital's pharmacy because it'd be quicker.
So I go to the hospital pharmacy.
Again, the same thing.
I'm standing in line between three people, all of whom have a problem on their insurance.
The one is for some 12-year-old boy, and it says he's no longer insured.
And the woman says, well, can you call right aid downtown because he was insured two days ago on Sunday?
And it turned out that he was a Blue Cross patient, but instead they put him down as a signet patient or whatever.
It's just, you know, so again, you stand in there taking ages and ages.
And I'm watching these pharmacists.
And I realize that, in fact, so-called pharmacists actually spend far more time checking out whether the customer is entitled to receive the drugs with the copay being taken care of or whatever, than actually filling prescriptions.
This is insane.
This is diverting.
This is a ludicrous waste of time.
It is the sound of a nation seizing up when you can't just go in, pay the prescription, here's a $20 bill, give me the change, I'm out of here, I'm done.
It can't be done anymore.
And there's far too many aspects of American life that are seizing up like that.
And eventually, to go back to that question we were asked in the last hour when talking about how you can create enough job.
Can't when so many barnacles encrust to the Hulk, when you've got to take a big chunk of time out of your day just to fill just to buy $10 worth of pills, when routine transactions start to eat into bigger and bigger chunks of the day, eventually too much seizes up.
And what's interesting about this is this is a classic third-party transaction.
We made healthcare a third-party transaction.
That makes it automatically expensive.
This is Vienna Economics, Vienna School of Economics.
This is basically the first principle.
Third-party transactions are inflationary because you don't care about the cost of those drugs.
You care about whether your third party will grant you access to those drugs.
Same with the college loans.
You don't care about the cost of, and college administrators don't care about the cost anymore of college education.
They're not coming up with a market price.
They know the government is there going to pick up the tab for anything.
So they can make it any.
That's why college education has increased at twice the rate of inflation.
And that's why education that ought to cost maybe $5,000 a year goes up to $30,000 a year and then $50,000 a year.
And that's because we made it a third-party transaction.
You imagine if going to a restaurant was a third-party transaction and you decide you're going to have the lobster bisque or whatever and the steak tartare.
You don't care what it costs.
You just care that the third party will grant you access to it.
You don't care whether the soup du jour costs $3 or $30 or $300.
All you care is whether the third party guarantor will grant you access to that.
And all that is actually killing, throttling huge, ever more areas of American life.
And it doesn't matter whether it's direct government intervention, as in the student loans, or arm's length government intervention, as in other areas of life.
It's the sound of a nation seizing up, and we've got very little time to turn this thing around.
And that's why candidates who are proposing serious root and branch reform, even if they don't get it through, even if they've got a hostile Senate and a hostel House and they don't get it through, they ought to be talking that way.
We need to be talking about serious transformative structural reform because the structures we have at the moment are seizing up and the American middle class is dying before our eyes.
Mark Stein in for rush, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein, Infra Rush on the EIB Network.
Rush Back Tomorrow.
Let's go to Jerry in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Jerry, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Mark, thanks for taking my call.
You asked during the first hour if there are any Perry supporters out here, and I'm one of them.
I don't know why it's such a mystery that we support Rick Perry.
He's one of the only conservatives that's up there on the stage.
What really I guess mystifies me is how we can have a guy that puts in RomneyCare, supports global warming, and hers illegal aliens, and we have him as our frontrunner.
Well, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Before we get into comparative things, what is it?
What is it about Rick Perry that you think makes him the kind of guy?
Because the point about debates, by the way, is apart from anything else, to show which of these guys you'd want to see, not debating Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, who you would actually want to put at a podium debating Barack Obama.
And are you confident that Rick Perry, based on his debate performances these last five or six weeks, is a guy who can— I can't tell you that he's a great debater, but I've been living in the state of Texas all my life, and for the past 10 years we've had his leadership.
We've got more companies, more employment.
We've dealt with all the illegal alien problems that the national government refuses to deal with.
And the state's still doing pretty well.
Well, here's the thing, though.
You've got a situation in Texas where, according to Romney, basically a big bunch of the jobs that Perry has created are supposedly government jobs or jobs for illegal aliens.
That's the Romney critique.
What do you say to that, Jerry?
Well, I live in Texas, and I can tell you that on any given day, you can go downtown in any small city, and you'll have 60 to 80 illegal aliens standing on the street corners trying to get work.
They're taking jobs that could be taken by the Texans, and we've dealt with that.
And our preference would be to send them back across the board, but we can't do that.
The federal government won't allow us to do that.
Yeah, that's true.
Only the federal government can actually deport people.
But again, again, I ask you this.
What is it that leads you to think, for example, that the Rick Perry is a principled conservative?
Because if you look, for example, at the whole business with the Gardasil thing, where he basically wanted to inoculate every single girl in Texas on the grounds that she'd be sexually active by the time she was nine or whatever,
the critique of Perry there is that he had that when it came to assessing that, he had no principled conservative objection to the state effectively mandating a controversial and in many ways actually very objectionable inoculation statewide, regardless of circumstances.
What's your reaction?
Well, I disagree with you on that.
I didn't agree with that.
I do have a daughter, and I didn't agree with Perry on that.
But I think when you say he didn't have a principle on it, he did.
He admitted that it was a mistake, but he said he would always err on the right to life.
And I think his main objective there was he was trying to protect little girls.
Did he go about it the right way?
Probably not.
And what about the accused?
I didn't question his principles on that.
And what about the accusations that are made that he has essentially a crony view of government?
He's on the seat of government?
Yeah, that it's about rewarding.
It's about rewarding, that he's got, it's about rewarding cronies and it's about access and pay-for-play and all the rest of it.
His argument about that was that I think when that came up in whatever it was, the Florida debate, that he couldn't be bought that cheap, which isn't actually an answer to the accusation when you think about it.
Yeah, I think if you look at all of them, they all have friends that are in there, and there's probably some trails that could lead to all of them.
You know, with Mitt Romney on the illegal alien, you know, it's hard to distinguish some of those things.
But I don't think you're going to find in Texas people saying that Rick Perry is showing favoritism or doing things that shouldn't be done.
Most Texans agree with what Rick Perry's doing.
Okay, and we'll do one more thing, by the way, just before I let you go, Jerry.
Here's the other thing is I don't like about Rick Perry, whatever the principles, I don't like the cheap demagoguery that if you happen to disagree with him on his illegal immigration policy, then he says it's because you've got no heart and you're not comfortable with people who have different sounding last names of yours.
That's a Democrat talking point, and Rick Perry shouldn't be using that one.
Yes, Rush Back Tomorrow.
We were talking to Rick Perry, Rick Perry fan.
I mentioned, I like that thing where Rick Perry always mentions that he's the son of a tenant farmer, which is one thing that Mitt Romney can't say.
And I think I said at the top of the show, I hope we get that classic Dusty Springfield hit.
The only man who could ever reach me was the son of a tenant farmer, man.
I love that song.
Love that song.
Let's go to Pete in Loveland, Ohio.
Pete, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show talking about the Republican debate.
Great to hear from you.
Hello, Mark.
I I enjoy listening to you.
I think you're a great fill-in, okay?
Thank you.
My point is on this debate that they had last night, I really feel that Obama won that debate.
The American people have seen enough of Congress fighting and bickering back and forth.
We don't want to see that.
We want to see what are you going to do.
And the moderators are asking the wrong questions.
But I think the Republicans are missing a great opportunity to cover what the mainstream media will not cover with Obama and let the American people know what's going on with our tax dollars with this solar and green energy, fast and furious, that we've got Marxists that's been appointed as czars.
It's a great opportunity to expand on that and say, if I'm the president, this will not happen.
So I think we're missing the mark there.
No, I think you're absolutely right, Pete.
And one of the worst things, I mean, it was enjoyable in a kind of vaudevillian knockabout way, but when Perry and Romney were sniping back and forth at each other in that exchange, the focus is all on them.
Again, the focus of people attacking the Herman Cain 999 plan.
At this stage, what you're really looking for is to keep the focus on the opposition, to keep saying that if you re-elect Barack Obama, you are in for this guy.
I mean, this is what's so crazy about this half-trillion dollar jobs bill.
The half trillion dollars doesn't exist.
The Chinese don't want to lend it to us.
The Chinese do not want Western nations to spend anymore.
We spent the summer engaged in this stupid, pitiful back-and-forth thing about the debt ceiling increase, and at the end of it, emerged triumphantly with a deal that cuts between $2 and $7 billion from the 2012 budget.
Well, $2 billion is what the United States government borrows basically, they borrow a fifth of a billion dollars an hour.
So that would be what the United States government borrows in 10 hours.
In other words, in the time it takes between announcing the deal and talking about it on the Friday afternoon and talking about it on the Sunday press shows, you borrowed, meet the press and all the rest of it, you borrowed all the money back.
And then he goes out and he says, we're going to spend, okay, we've done our pretense of debt reduction.
We're now going to spend another half a trillion dollars on the stupid jobs bill.
And the Republicans should be keeping the focus on this, that this crazy guy has no intention.
He appoints a committee, and then the committee goes away for five years and nobody pays any attention to them.
In the meantime, he just gets back in the car, heads for, takes America toward the cliff edge, and decides to floor it with another half trillion dollar spending bill.
And when you're not, every time you're sniping about Mitt Romney's lawnboy, you're taking the attention off the real crisis facing the United States.
Exactly.
And there's going to, when it comes down to the final two or three, there'll be plenty of time for them dogs to fight each other.
But right now, you're exactly right, Mark.
And mainstream media is not cut, so let America know what's going on and what you will do.
No.
No, you're right, Pete.
It was a sad debate from that point of view, I think.
And I was interested.
I mentioned earlier that I like Michelle Bachman.
And one thing I did like about her performance last night was that she did keep the focus very much on Obama, the one-term president.
There isn't a lot of time left to turn this stuff around.
There was a weird story out of Agent's France Press last week that said the Chinese had agreed to rescue the Eurozone in return for getting certain interests in European infrastructure.
Now, think about how extraordinary this story would seem to anybody from just not going back to the remote past, but to say an American or other Western citizen from 40 years ago, from 1971, he picks up a story.
It's just reprinted.
The very first paragraph, Agence-France-Presse.
China has made a secret commitment to prop up the crisis-hit Eurozone in return for budget reforms and public sector cuts, the Sunday Times reported amid growing turmoil over the region's debt crisis.
The paper said Chinese representatives at the G20 finance gathering on Saturday had indicated that Beijing was willing to pump tens of billions into the Eurozone to purchase infrastructure assets from debt-plague nations.
This is the Western world in twilight.
The People's Republic of China, a communist polit bureau, is keeping the other half of the Western world, Europe, from collapsing by buying its infrastructure assets.
Dewey, does anybody think anything good is going to come of this?
You know, China will end up owning Europe.
And what's next for China then?
Do you think it's inconceivable that China won't end up purchasing large amounts of the United States?
Albert Brooks, the filmmaker, the guy, what was that film he made?
Broadcast News.
He was in that film and he was in the one with what was it called?
Was it called Momway Debbie Reynolds as his, he moved back in with Debbie Reynolds as his mom.
Albert Brooks, the actor, he's got a novel out called 2030.
And the premise of the novel, it's a fascinating book, actually.
He's a big liberal, but he gets what's going on.
2030, Los Angeles is clobbered by an earthquake, and the United States is broke and can't afford to fix it.
And effectively, the Chinese agree to buy Los Angeles.
And they send in a ton of Chinese administrators and Chinese technology whiz kids to rebuild Los Angeles.
2030, that's when Albert Brooks's novel is called.
I think the only thing he got wrong about that is maybe he's a decade off in the timing.
Maybe it should be 2020.
It's happening now.
The Politburo, communists, we helped China find the only economically viable form of communism, and they're now using it to buy infrastructure assets in Europe.
This would strike anybody from the 1960s, from 50 years ago, from 40 years ago, would think they'd landed in an alternative universe reading that story.
There was just a wire story, routine wire story.
This is the world we have made.
And all those Occupy Wall Street deadbeats have to offer is more of the same self-indulgent fiscal profligacy that got us into this hole.
Let's go to Mark in Princeton, Wisconsin.
Mark, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hi, Mark.
Pleasure talking to you.
The reason I'm calling is I think I have a really important message.
I've just never heard it put this way before.
Right now, Obama has a war against the wealthy.
And I want the Americans, especially conservatives, to look at it a different way.
I'm a homebuilder, and I have not had a home to build since 2008 because I built homes around a fairly wealthy vacation lake in Wisconsin, Green Lake, Wisconsin.
And since the threat of what Obama was going to do with the wealthy's money, literally the five or six homebuilders around this lake, including myself, have had nothing to do.
And my point is that we need the rich.
The rich are an important component of our economy.
For example, I was born in Chicago, Illinois.
I lived in Downers Grove.
And I wasn't rich, yet I got to use the wealthy, I mean, the environment that the wealthy used.
In Oakbrook, for example, the restaurants, the hotels, the theaters.
Without the wealthy, we wouldn't have those things.
We wouldn't have this lake that I live around.
We wouldn't have Las Vegas.
We wouldn't have our environment.
And the proof of the pudding is if you look at Cuba, you look at China.
China has a lot of money, but the people don't.
Just the politicians.
Same with Cuba.
I heard at one time in the 50s, Cuba was a nice place to go.
But you take the wealthy away, you take the restaurants, you take the environment everything away.
Also, the rich, like myself, I wasn't wealthy.
I was aspiring to be.
But I employed 16 people and their families that took care of their families, which now for the past three years I haven't been able to do.
You know, Ronald Reagan talked about trickle-down.
Well, it's more than just the money.
It's the employment.
I mean, the rich have so many offshoots, so many facets of things they do for people.
And all they're doing now is defending them.
Well, they're not taking too much.
The rich create this pile of money, and it keeps growing.
And the point of it, the left is, well, there's this pile of money, and the rich keep taking from it, and there's not enough left for anybody else.
That's wrong.
No, you're right.
It's a flawed view of the rich.
And your international comparisons are right.
Because if you have private wealth, you have a situation where neighborhoods improve.
The streets are better.
As you say, the restaurants are better.
You have theaters.
You have civic buildings.
You have a civic culture.
The neighborhoods are nicer.
The neighborhoods are clean.
It's always fascinating to me if you go to places.
I drove around western Iraq about three weeks after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
And you came to these little towns in the middle of nowhere.
And of course, a couple of corrupt government officials had all the money.
So there were no rich, really.
There was a rich guy stealing from the people who kept it all walled up in his Swiss bank account.
And so when you went to these towns, what strikes you about going to towns in countries like that is they're covered in trash.
You go into what would be a middle-class cul-de-sac in an American town, and it's full of garbage.
The place is a dump.
There is no culture of improvement.
And that's one thing I think that economic growth does.
When people talk about sustainability, the best thing you can do for a neighborhood is it's wealthy people, it's wealthy communities that want to improve those communities, that want cleaner air and all the rest of it in those communities.
And this idea of demonizing them, that somehow they've just found some racket and just out of sheer greed, they want to depress everything.
That world is coming.
I made the Argentinian comparison, whatever it was, 20 minutes ago.
And it will be the same thing, where you will have, as you do in Argentina, had the same standard of living as America in 1950, pretty much.
And then what happened is the Peronese get in.
A few corrupt, privileged people have access to the wealth, but because they've acquired it in illegitimate ways, they hole it up behind compounds.
So you have wealthy people in compounds, and on the other side of the gate, you have, and the other side of the wall, you have huge public squalor.
That's not what the rich do in the United States of America.
And the class warfare that Obama is engaging in is not just wicked on its face, but it is also absurd because private wealth improves the United States of America.
Public wealth has been squandered for the most part in the United States of America.
Thanks for your call.
Mark got a run.
Got to take an EIB profit center.
We'll be back with more on the Rush Limbaugh Show in just a moment.
Mark Stein for Rush.
Let's go to Kevin in Columbus, Ohio.
Kevin, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, I was wondering about your candidate there.
What makes any of them qualified to even be president?
They're sitting there tearing each other apart.
And through all that, I see that the only person that would have a chance would be Mitt Romney, but you guys don't even accept him.
When you say you guys, I take it then you're sticking with Obama.
In general.
Okay, and you're an Obama supporter, is that right?
I certainly am.
And which well, no, I'm just interested.
So you don't think any of these guys on the stage last night is qualified to be president?
What made Obama qualified to be president?
I really do not think so.
But the only person that really comes close is Romney, but they do not accept Romney.
Okay, now what makes a guy qualified to be president, Kevin?
Let's talk about this.
What was Obama's qualification for being president?
Well, for one, he's intelligent.
He's a constitutional scholar.
And that to me, you know, is good enough to really get in there and get it started.
Okay, he's intelligent.
He's intelligent for one.
Wait, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
He's intelligent.
He's intelligent.
What's the evidence for his intelligence?
Come on.
He was at the Harvard Law Review.
He never wrote a single...
Come on.
What?
What do you mean?
What's the evidence for?
He's more intelligent than anybody on that stage.
Right, okay.
Okay, that's great.
Well, if he's more intelligent than anybody on that stage, how do you explain the last three years?
Well, because he's not been able, he's been hindered.
He's been strong.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
They don't want him to do well.
After all, wait a minute, wait a minute.
No Republicans need be involved in Obama's triumph.
For the first two years, Kevin, he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives.
No Republicans need be involved in the public conversation.
He had a Democrat majority in both houses.
Why did unemployment get worse, long-term unemployment get worse, housing market get worse, jobs market get worse?
Why did it all get worse?
They have the money.
They could hire.
They just do not want to hire right now.
They're just playing this wait and see game.
So the business sector wants to keep the economy bad.
Is that what you're saying, Kevin?
Well, yeah, exactly.
They don't want to get better.
How's that?
Really?
And which intelligent presidential candidate did you get that from then?
Did you get that direct from Barack Obama?
No, sir.
I can see what's going on.
It's obvious that no one wants to do anything right now.
They're playing a wait-and-see game.
Why are they playing a wait-and-see game?
Now, why are they playing a wait-and-see game, by the way?
Because the best guarantor of a dynamic economy is certainty in the rules.
And Obama tossed all the rules up in the air.
That's why when you look at where companies move to, companies move to jurisdictions where the rules are understood and the rules are agreed.
They didn't just start moving over the past three years.
They've been moving for a long time, and it's not because of the rules, it's because of greed, sir.
You know that.
What greed?
What do you mean by greed?
If they make more profit, that's what they go for, profit.
They don't care about anybody.
Just profit.
And you know what?
By the way, that system, that system has guaranteed greater prosperity than at any point in human history.
In other words, allowing people to exploit their own economic self-interest.
What has Barack Obama ever created in terms of wealth?
When has he ever made a payroll?
When has he ever, until he became president, you talk about qualifications for president, until he became president, tell me what he ever did, what he ever did to get to the office at 9 a.m. in the morning and actually make decisions that matter.
We've got to run, Kevin.
We've got an EIB profit center here.
I blush to use that word, but we've got to run.
That's it for Mark Stein sitting in on the Rush Limborough show.
That's it for Occupy EIB.
I'm off to take my bi-monthly shower like the other protesters.
▲
Export Selection