All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:24
November 1, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I know, I know.
You tell them it's my show and that they can take it where the sun doesn't shine.
Greetings, welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Ah, one of the program directors.
No, no, no, it's okay.
It's okay.
Look, the show has just started.
Somebody in my ear here.
Fine, we'll go to a different one then.
Anyway, welcome back.
800-282-2882, the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
How many of you operate, or at least know of the popular uh conventional wisdom?
That if you drink a glass or two of red wine a day, cholesterol will be down.
Picture of health.
The French do it.
Now look at them.
They're not overweight.
They don't die early.
Eat cheese with it, little protein in the wine, you're in there.
How many how many people believe that?
I hate to bring this.
Right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Where's this from?
No, I can't.
I'm not going to do that.
I don't know where this is from.
So since I don't have a source.
Uh, let's see.
I can't tell you.
Sorry.
I can't do it.
Basically, um, you have two drinks a day, you're going to die of cancer, is what the story says.
Well, I can't tell you what, because I it has no credibility.
I don't know where it's from.
So it may not stop political, but it's going to stop me.
If I don't know where something's from, I'm not going to tell you, but I'm not going to give you the details.
I'm not going to give credibility to something.
I don't know what it is.
Now you might be, well, then how do you have it?
Don't ask.
It's too long a story.
But it's right there, but there's no source for it.
So anyway, we do have this from CNBC.
The pace of growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector unexpectedly slowed in October.
While growth in U.S. construction spending also slowed in September, according to reports released today.
Okay, now I will you know what?
I will accept the use of the word unexpectedly here because everybody is probably surprised at us.
Because we had last week the news that the economy grew at two and a half percent.
GDP, well, baby, skyrocketing upward.
We're back.
It just took us a little longer than we thought, Obama said.
Yeah, that's right.
My plans, they're finally paying off.
It took a little longer than we thought, but it's finally there.
But then here comes the sad news that an unexpected news is manufacturing growth and construction spending have slowed.
The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity dipped about a point and missed expectations, according to a Reuters poll of economists.
You know what these people can do?
Just poll me and be done with it, and I could tell them exactly what's going to happen every month economically.
I mentioned earlier in the program today that uh you would be telling you of uh a shocking study on the truth of what public scrubal teachers uh earn.
A couple of researchers looked into this.
And as the Washington examiner editorializes today, and the headline of their piece is Public School Teachers Make More Than Private Sector Workers.
Now, the reason I'm gonna spend some time on this is because we always hear about how teachers don't earn anything, and they're so important.
It's just not right, Mr. Limbaugh.
These athletes, Arod with his 275 million dollar contract, what's A-Rod doing for people compared to teachers?
Teachers do so much more for people.
Teachers are so important.
They're so underpaid.
It's just not right, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's just isn't right.
Teachers are so important that we just disrespect them throughout all of our society.
That's the public.
Conventional wisdom.
And as the Washington examiner writes, we can already hear the anguished, angry protests of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, but our headline captures the essence of an important new study released today by Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, American Enterprise Institute's Andrew Briggs.
Rich Wine and Briggs found that when public school teachers and private sector workers are compared objectively on the basis of cognitive skills.
Rather than years of service or educational attainment, the educators enjoy higher compensation, contrary to the claims of union officials in public debate and in negotiations with scroll boards.
This is seen most dramatically when workers switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs.
Such a move typically results in a wage increase of approximately 9%.
Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by 3%.
This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
And Mr. Briggs, Andrew Briggs himself has written a piece asking, are public school teachers desperately underpaid.
Today, my co-author Jason Richwine and I will be releasing a new study on public school teacher pay and holding an event at AEI.
It's interesting stuff that's worth hearing about in person.
But here's the short story.
Public school teachers receive lower salaries than similarly educated private sector workers.
This leads many to conclude, as education secretary Arnie Duncan did, that teachers are desperately underpaid.
But these credentials-based comparisons are dicey when a single occupation teacher generally holds a single type of degree, bachelor's or master's in education.
Research that we cite shows that education is, to put things bluntly, among the easiest college majors.
Teachers enter with below average SAT scores but earn far higher GPAs than people majoring in history or chemistry or other subjects, which scows uh skews the numbers.
The bottom line with this is that it's another piece of conventional wisdom that has now been stood on its head.
That compared to others, public school teachers who desperately underpaid.
They're not.
They make more than private sector workers.
And that's becoming accurate to say about every public sector versus private sector job.
The average public sector employee makes almost twice when you factor benefits into the picture.
What a private sector person makes.
Now, some of you might say, so what, Rush?
I thought you for everybody doing well.
Oh, I am, don't misunderstand, but private sector people are the ones who are paying the public sector people.
That becomes a problem when the people paying earn only half of the people who are being paid by them.
That's not gonna work out.
Now, a good deal of the revenue from scrubs comes from property taxes.
You know, the homes and businesses of people who never pay their fair share, many of whom don't have children living at home.
What is this money pay for?
Public sector union teachers, administrators and their facilities, and all part of a near monopoly turns out ill-educated students.
That's what the scores say, it's what business owners say they all agree.
Yet despite these results, these greedy property owners who are derogatorily called the one percent, they're dutifully paying their property taxes without so much as a thank you.
You know, yesterday I got I got off on a rant about it being time that we went after the left's base.
They're going after ours as racists and sexists, and we are the one percent, and we're the ones not paying our fair share and all of that.
And we have to have our taxes increased, we've got to do more when in fact Their base make up the nation's losers.
Way too many people who vote Democrat are in the loser class in this country, and they're out there with their hands out.
They're demanding this and they're demanding that just because they can.
And no matter what they're given, they never say thank you.
They just continue to complain that it's not enough.
And they continue to claim that others who are providing what they get still aren't paying their fair share.
And all of this is encouraged by the Democrats.
But we are what?
We're supposed to thank all of these public sector teachers.
We're supposed to thank these people for the hard work they're doing educating our students.
And we're expected to say that we wish they were paid more.
We are expected to say that they are being taken advantage of by the rich evil one percent who aren't paying their fair share.
That's the accepted narrative.
Teachers, principals, administrators are underpaid, underappreciated.
We don't say thanks enough for all the hard work they do.
Instead, we're overpaying athletes and bankers and everybody else.
When in fact, the takers and losers that make up the Democrat Party base never say thanks for anything.
All they ever say is it's not enough.
And that's what these guys, rich wine and bigs, have done at AEI and Heritage.
They have studied and they have examined who really is underpaid and who isn't.
And it's uh interesting stuff.
It gets a little technical, which is why I have summarized it for you here.
I've got to take a brief time out, another obscene profit timeout, it is, and we will be back and continue after this.
All right, so Wall Street Journal raising the chance of some cancers with two drinks a day.
Recent headlines have made alcohol seem almost like a health food.
Alcohol can be good for the heart, or another reason to drink red wine.
Red wine has an ingredient called resveratrol.
And resveratrol mimic the metabolic effects of dieting and exercise in obese men.
But it didn't lead to weight loss.
Yet a daily 150 milligram dose of resveratrol lowered blood pressure as well as blood glucose levels and liver fat in obese men after 30 days.
So red wine was considered a healthful thing to do.
And a lot of people have been using that as an excuse.
All these stupid stories where oat brand's gonna cause cancer, then it won't.
This is going to be constipation, then it won't.
If coffee's gonna kill you, the blood pressure and heart attack, then it won't.
All these every salt, it never ends.
And here's just the latest iteration.
Evidence is mounting of a more insidious threat.
Regularly drinking, even in moderation, raises the long-term risk of many kinds of cancer.
A burgeoning body of research links alcohol to cancers of the breast, liver, colon, pancreas, mouth, throat, larynx, and esophagus.
Oh dear.
A large new study last week added lung cancer to the list.
Even for people who've never smoked cigarettes, all of this from adult beverages.
By the way, Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer, age 56 and never drank.
So you got all of this rot gut.
You know what?
It's just like you idiot college students.
Let me tell you how it works.
You go to college, you come out of there, you understand you don't know anything.
You've got a diploma that says you're educated.
You use that to get your foot in the door for interview at where you want to work.
You go to work there and you start working.
And then after a while, you've done good work and you get another job that pays a little bit more.
And after that, you get another job, pays a little bit more, and after that, another job that pays a little bit more, and after that, you might be doing okay.
That's how it works.
When it comes to all this other stuff, you get up every day and you try to enjoy life as best you can, understanding that you're going to die someday.
And that you only have one life, and if you get absorbed in all of this rot gut about what'll kill you and what won't, you're never going to enjoy the day.
You're going to end up being a nervous nelly that nobody wants to be around.
And you're going to be judging everybody else on every morsel of whatever they eat or drink, and nobody's going to want to be around you.
You got to figure out how to enjoy life, and you have to do that on your own terms.
Not living somebody else's.
Even some bunch of experts in a newspaper.
Now, here's Bill in O'Reilly, Grand California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Greetings from a conservative in California.
There are a few of us out here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
That's not many, but uh you're at least proud to admit it.
Yeah, I'm calling them regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I've been watching the slammid coverage on television and uh paying particular attention to the signs that they have.
It seems they're blaming the financial institutions, Wall Street, the banks for the financial meltdown.
That's right.
I feel that the real blame lies with we the people.
Wall Street simply supplied the gun in the way of easy credit, subprime loans, uh loans easy to qualify.
But it was we the people that took their gun and shot ourselves in the foot.
Well, I understand theoretically what you mean.
That is we get what we want in the democracy, and we get what we pay for, and uh all of that.
In this case, um let me ask you a question.
Because in this case, the whole subprime mortgage thing can and has been, without doubt, traced to government policy, which was rooted in the theory that the financial institutions were discriminating against minorities by not giving them loans.
And so Bill Clinton came along with Janet Reno, and the short version of the story is they threatened the lending institutions, and I we did a two-page spread on this in the Limbaugh letter, and explained how all of this happened with Janet Reno and Barney Franklin Clinton threatening these financial institutions that if he didn't make this these loans that the federal government was going to bring everything it had to bear on them and their business finding them, CEOs run the company and so forth and so on.
So the lending institutions created these loans that nobody could ever pay back, and then they invented the financial products that they sold to other dupes, hoping to make the worthless loans that they had been forced to make worth something to themselves.
Now my question to you is your theory is that this all happened because we wanted it.
Society wanted homes.
So are you saying, and I'm not challenging you, don't misunderstand my my tone and my voice.
Are you saying that Clinton and the government only instituted this program because a number of citizens wanted to buy homes that couldn't.
Well, it was like when the banks offered uh first offered credit cards.
Uh I think they knew that the uh the people would run up huge balances and have to pay high interest rates, and uh certain amount of people wanted uh nicer houses.
Uh uh they offered them the subprime loans, which allowed them to purchase these houses, and uh now they're underwater.
Well, but not all the homes underwater are some prime.
No, no.
Subprime subprime is basically a mortgage that should never have existed because the person who was lent the money was never ever going to be able to pay it back.
But that didn't matter to Bill Clinton or Janet Reno.
Right.
What mattered was this whole notion of homeownership and spreading that around, being seen as responsible for making it possible for all these poor people to own homes and then thus always vote for Bill Clinton Democrats, which was the theory.
So I understand the theoretical thing that you're saying here, that like we like to blame the banks, but they were only giving us what we wanted.
And you might want to get on the banks for these uh uh interest rates, just unconscionable.
But we're the ones who wanted the money.
We're the ones who wanted to be able to bar.
We're the ones that wanted to be able to charge stuff.
I think it's admirable to want to take on blame.
But at some point here, uh this, even just because we want it, doesn't mean we have to have it given.
And this was a debacle orchestrated by politicians.
All things to all people, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Let us not forget.
Barack Obama, back in the old days, sued Citibank for redlining.
Was one of his two suits, lawsuits as a lawyer.
Obama, back in Chicago, sued Citibank for redlining.
Now, Barack Obama as president has said that the banks snookered people into these mortgages.
And our previous caller, you know, hey, hey, this only happened because we wanted it.
Government, the banks, I mean, they really can't be held accountable.
They want we wanted it, they gave it to us.
Be interesting to know.
Was there an association of poor people who made it be known to the Democrat Party, it's unfair we can't have houses, we want houses too.
And Jesse Jackson running around, so where did this start?
How did this all get started?
Acorn well, it was Acorn's primary function, but it was also, it was also the these shakedowns are a classic of the Reverend Jackson.
And this was a shakedown of the banking industries, what this was.
The subprime mortgage mortgage thing was a shakedown.
Acorn and others upset, not fair.
Poor people couldn't have houses too.
Barney Frank.
Well, we need more than this company of affordable housing.
That's not right.
The people who can afford houses to deliver them.
So we will set it up for if you cannot afford a house, you still live in one.
And they did it.
And they went to the banks, and you're going to make loans to these people.
And if you don't, we're going to put you in jail, or we're going to investigate you.
We're going to do something.
We're going to make your life hell.
And it's exactly what happened.
If Wall Street had had their way, there wouldn't have been a subprime mortgage collapse in the first place because they wouldn't have made these loans.
If pure capitalism had actually been at work here, been allowed to run its course, the banks would not have been making loans that they didn't want to make.
But that wasn't a factor.
You got Clinton, Reno.
Cuomo, don't forget Andrew Cuomo as the HUD secretary, was huge in Clinton's HUD secretary.
Andrew Cuomo was big on this community redevelopment act, which is subprime mortgage instigator.
Franklin reigns over it at Fannie Mae and Chris Dodd.
I mean, this den of thieves.
They're the ones that got this all started.
And there's a story today.
You know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We're still bailing them out.
There's a story today about the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the huge bonuses that they are being paid this year.
Execs at Fannie Mae Freddie Mac are earning huge bonuses.
Somebody needs to tell Occupy Wall Street about this.
But nobody will, and they won't protest Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Because they are asking government to do something.
Acorn, you're right, Snerdley.
Acorn was the organization that got all of this started.
It was about putting people into houses.
Cuomo doubled the number of houses that were made available under the Community Redevelopment Act.
It was one of the it was it was a huge, huge scam.
And nowhere did anybody ever ask who was really going to end up paying for this.
I've said it over and over.
Okay, so the banks were the first ones to have to make the money available.
They had to figure out a way to earn it back.
So they figured out creative ways to package or pool these subprime mortgages.
Yes, they pooled them into I forget what they called them, momentary mental block.
No, it was a it's I forget the name of it, but they they pulled these mortgages and they sold them as securities to people as an investment.
Well, those buyers found out they'd been had, so they came up with a product, a trumped up phony product to sell to the next group of idiots on a phony scam, and finally it all caved in on itself like Madoff did when finally there'd no dupes left to sell this stuff to.
And that's when it that's when it collapsed, essentially.
That's a scam from the get-go, just like Madoff was a scam.
And of course, here's this federal regulators have discovered that hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money has gone missing from MF Global in recent days, prompting an investigation into the brokerage firm, which is run by that, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
The former governor of New Jersey, prominent Democrat with the bad hair, John Corzine.
Corzine also used to run Goldman Sachs.
Corzine was also a United States Senator.
He's always used other people's money.
So he loses the governorship of New Jersey.
Pools his expertise as a senator as a governor in his uh CEO status at Goldman Sachs starts his own firm, MF Global.
And millions of dollars of customer money is missing, just like investors in Madoff.
Their money ended up missing.
The recognition that money was missing scuttled the 11th hour an agreement to sell a major part of Corzine's firm to a rival brokerage firm, MF Global, had staked its survival on completing that deal to sell itself.
Regulators are examining whether MF Global diverted some customer funds to support its own trades as the firm teetered on the brink of collapse.
The uh discovery that money could not be located might simply now see here, this is this claim.
New York Times in a reporting on a Democrat.
How could Corzine be so stupid?
Not what a crook.
The discovery that that money could not be located might simply reflect sloppy internal controls at MF Global.
Yeah, mistakes were made.
Sounds familiar.
Who else used that excuse?
Somebody in the Clinton regime.
Sandy Burglar.
Yeah, yeah.
Millions of dollars of customer money is missing, and the New York Times says could simply reflect sloppy internal controls.
It's funny how Enron never got that benefit of the doubt.
You remember New York Times never Enron.
I think correct me if I'm wrong, but I believed that Corzine had something to do with Enron.
I think Corzine helped Enrine invent a an accounting scheme or financial product or something.
Yeah, yeah, liabilities were converted to assets.
Corzine helped Enron come up with a shenanigan that turned liabilities into assets on the balance sheet.
And they hid billions of dollars.
And that, of course, like all phony things like this is going to collapse at some point.
Was Corzine who helped them do this?
Simple mistakes were made.
Just like how could Bill Clinton be so silly not to get that dress back?
Herman Keene, you lousy SOB, you dirty rotten sexual assessor skunk.
We're gonna get rid of you, you SOB.
We hate your gut herman.
How could Bill Clinton be so silly and stupid to not get that dress back?
You note how the coverage changes.
Anybody can somebody tell me what does the MF stand for in MF Global?
Anyone want to take a wild guess at what the MF stands for in MF Global after all this?
And as the New York Times dutifully almost sorrowfully reports, it's still unclear where the money went.
At first, as much as $950 million was believed to be missing, but as the firm sorted through its bankruptcy, that figure fell to less than 700 million by late.
Oh, well, that makes it okay.
Nothing.
Nothing to see here.
It was almost a billion, it's only 700 million.
No big deal.
How could John Corsing make such a mistake?
But the investigation, which in its earliest stages may uncover something more intentional and troubling in any case.
What led to the unaccounted for cash could violate a tenet of Wall Street regulation.
Customers' funds must be kept separate from company money.
One of the basic duties of any brokerage firm is to keep track of customer accounts on a daily base.
How could CORZIN have been so lackadaisical?
Neither MF Global nor Mr. Corzine has been accused of any wrongdoing, unlike Herman Cain.
Lawyers for MF Global did not respond to request for comment.
Now the inquiry threatens to tarnish further the reputation of Mr. Corzine, who we're doing everything we can to protect.
Here at the New York Times, because he's a Democrat.
MF Global was seen as having taken on an enormous amount of risk with little room for error given its size.
By Friday evening, MF Global was under pressure to put up more money to support its trading positions, threatening to drain the firm's remaining cash.
But Herman Cain is going down.
Herman Cain.
You see what political said.
We're not putting up with Herman Cain.
Clinton, yeah, he's a hero on us.
You know why?
Because he so frustrates you people.
We love taking you people out for things that we praise our side for doing, because we know how it irritates you.
That's the operating standard of the New York Times.
Or the uh left wing media.
I gotta take a break, sadly, my friends, so we'll do it and be right back.
Back to the phones.
We go to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Dave.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hey Rush, how you doing?
Listen, uh, what I'm wondering is, do you think these attacks on uh can uh cane are because of the they might have some internal polling stating that they're gonna get their clock cleaned by this guy?
You you mean Obama?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it could be coming from Obama.
I do.
Um surprisingly, I was reading Slate.com with some liberal publication, uh maybe a number of liberal publications are convinced that this uh all came from a Republican campaign.
They don't name one.
You would figure it'd be Perry or Mitt Romney.
I don't know.
I have no clue where it came from.
I have no idea where it came from.
I would I if somebody told me the Obama campaign, I'd be just as inclined to believe that as anybody else.
Only gonna be one black guy in this race, Kane.
And it ain't going to be you.
We'll just have to wait and see, folks.
That's about all we can do while focusing on other things as well.
Julie in Prescott, Arizona.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you here.
Thanks, Rush.
Megadeth.
I've been listening to you since I graduated college in 1989, and uh really excited to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, the reason I'm calling is I heard you talking about classical education, and and I know you're talking at the university level, but I have three kids that I pulled out of what were considered top-notch blue ribbon public schools and uh in beautiful Carmel, California, and uh we moved because of schools actually to find a better education for our kids, and they are in a classical Christian school.
I can't even tell you what the school is is doing for these kids.
Yes, they're they're learning Latin, which I know it's a dead language, but uh no, no, it's all about culture.
Well, they're learning they're learning to think, Rush.
There's they are That is a key.
They are learning to become critical thinkers.
That is a key, and and the left doesn't want anybody critically thinking about anything.
They want them blindly accepting.
And that's what we left.
We left just indoctrination.
And um, I I couldn't be more proud than my kids are debating and and at home we get into conversations and they uh they're learning to out debate their mom and dad at the school, but I couldn't be more proud.
So don't I tell you what, you're probably as responsible for that as the uh as the school they're attending.
Uh a lot of parents, particularly today, totally abandon any responsibility.
Schools, it's school's job to teach my kids, school's job to do all that.
It's too hard for me to do it.
I think there's a lost notion that uh parents are the single most formative uh people in uh in children's lives, for good or bad.
And it's very rare that a school is going to change that.
Anyway, I'm glad you called uh uh Julie.
I appreciate it.
Uh folks, sadly, for this busy broadcast segment, we're out of time, but we've got more.
We come back.
I'm holding here my formerly nicotine stained fingers, a story from CNN, which documents how the feminazis have made all of our costs increase, particularly in business.
Now, no, no, no.
CNN doesn't say that.
CNN's story does not say feminazis make all of our costs go up.
It's a story about sexual harassment and claims and how businesses deal with them, and they just settle them for five figures to get rid of them.
It's easier than litigating them.
It's become a practice.
The feminazis has brought the businesses pass the costs on the consumers.
Now, that's my interpretation.
CNN doesn't say it that way.
But don't doubt me, feminazis are increasing the cost of doing business.
We'll see you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection