All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
November 16, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It sounds like New York State just can't let go of me.
Even though Governor Patterson said that if he knew that it would have forced me out of the state sooner, he would have raised taxes sooner.
Well, it did force me out every year since 1996.
Which is when I moved out of New York City.
Anyway, greetings.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone, America's real anchor man here.
As law as well as a doctor of democracy.
And America's truth detector all combined in one harmless, lovable little fuzzbull.
From John Voorhees at Slate.com.
The Congressional Supercommittee has one week left to hammer out a deal that would provide $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade.
Think they can do it.
If your answer is no, you're not alone.
A new poll out Wednesday shows the vast majority of Americans would bet against the bipartisan deal.
CNN Orc International Survey shows that 78% of those polls say that it's somewhat or very unlikely that there will be a deal by the November 23rd deadline.
Furthermore, Americans are more likely to lay the blame for the failure with Congressional Republicans than they are Democrats by a margin of 42 to 32%.
More Americans would blame the Republicans if the Supercommittee fails.
It's another reason why the Democrats don't want a Supercommittee deal.
It's not the main reason.
The main reason is there was never supposed to be a deal.
Obama's campaign is based on a do-nothing Congress.
Now this is from, let's see, what's he here?
I don't I don't know.
Oh, this is um the Hill dot com.
You're not going to like the headline, nor are you going to like the story.
Republican leaders preparing rank and file for deal on new tax revenues.
House Republican leaders began preparing their members on Tuesday to accept a potential deficit deal that includes new tax revenues.
The GOP co-chairman of the Supercommittee, Jeb Henserling of Texas, briefed the House Republican conference on the details of multiple offers Republican members of the panel have made to their Democrat counterpoints.
A week or counterparts, a week before the November 23rd deadline, which is today.
A deal is yet to be struck.
Yesterday's meeting offered Hensserling his first chance to explain to his arrestive colleagues what Republicans have described as a major concession in negotiations with the Democrats.
Lawmakers emerged from the closed door meeting yesterday saying Hanserling had made the case that offering some new revenue, 300 billion in at least one publicized offer, would be a good trade to secure a permanent extension of the George W. Bush era tax rates.
Now I'm wondering, folks here, we got this story from the Hill.com about uh Republican leaders preparing rank and file for deal that involves a concession.
I'm wondering if there is a twin piece, another media piece somewhere like this about major concessions the Democrats are making.
Somehow, I don't think that story exists.
And somehow I think the reason it doesn't exist because I don't think the Democrats are going to make any concessions.
But according to the Hill.com, the Republicans are going to make a concession.
$300 billion in new tax revenue.
Now, doesn't necessarily mean a tax increase.
You can get new revenue from taxes by cutting them.
I don't know what it means.
Let's let's let's uh read further.
Speaker John Boehner told reporters after the briefing that the Republicans had made a fair offer, referring to a proposal from Supercommittee member Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that would call for about $300 billion in new taxes in a total deficit reduction package of 1.2 trillion dollars.
Now, folks, we don't have a revenue problem.
We have a spending problem, and raising taxes is only going to exacerbate that.
But here's the next line in the story.
Despite the concession on taxes, despite the Republicans agreeing to raise taxes $300 billion, the Democrats have rejected the offer as not serious.
Henseling received a standing ovation following his presentation, which one Republican described as clinical and somewhat detached.
Somewhat detached?
That's how Hensling sounded to his own caucus.
They've all sounded detached to us for a long time.
But get this.
Yes.
One lawmaker who attended the conference told the Hill that Hensling did say what would the statutory obligations that have been set before us, let alone the statutory goals, don't be surprised if they're not met.
So that means that even $300 billion in new taxes won't meet the goals.
Sheesh.
What...
What part of taxed enough already don't Republicans seem to understand?
Did we dream up that whole year of 2010?
Did we dream up the midterm election results?
Did we dream up the whole Tea Party existence and its reason for existing?
So according to this story, and again, I won't be surprised if I get a call from somebody in Republican leadership's office.
That Hill story is dead wrong.
They've misquoted us the story.
It's now not reporting the truth about it.
I wouldn't be surprised, but what we have to go on is this story.
And it seems to be that the Republican plan is to trade $300 billion in new taxes for a permanent extension of the Bush tax rates.
But the problem is that nothing is permanent in Washington.
Obama's been trying to undo the Bush tax rates for as long as he's been there.
There's nothing to stop the Democrats from ending the Bush tax rates after they get this $300 billion in new tax.
But they're not, apparently, they're not going to take it.
They're refusing the $300 billion tax increase.
So maybe what we've really got here is a sleight of hand trick by the Republicans.
Okay, okay, you guys want some tax increase, you want some new revenue.
Here's $300 billion.
And Democrats reject it so that we can then say they don't want a deal.
They're going to try to blame us for no deal.
We've asked them.
We've given them what they've asked for.
And they still turn it up.
Maybe that's maybe that's the plan.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Of course the Democrats were insulted not just by the extension of Bush tax cuts.
The Democrats say they're insulted by $300 billion.
It's paltry.
But the hope here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies is that this is a trick.
That these guys know that the Democrats don't want a deal, that these guys know the whole point here is to have no deal and have it blamed on the Republican soul.
Hensseling lets it be known to the media, "I told my caucus, we're willing, okay, you keep the Bush tax cuts intact and we'll find $300 billion in new tax revenue." Democrats say, nope, rejected at a hand.
Once again, the problem with this is that it relies on the mainstream media to tell the truth about what's going on.
It relies on the mainstream media, say Republicans in a show of good faith offered exactly what the Democrats have been demanding.
New tax revenue via tax increases.
But the Democrats selfishly reject.
That's what they're hoping to get from the mainstream media.
They want it reported that way.
If that is indeed the gambit, you're only going to hear about it here and elsewhere in the alternative, so-called alternative media.
The mainstream guys are not going to give the Republicans credit here.
The mantra, the narrative, attempt, blah blah blah, blah, blah, is Republicans won't compromise.
Republicans want the poor to stay poor.
The Republicans want the air to stay dirty and the water to stay dirty, and the Republicans want people to die, and the Republicans want people to get sick.
The Republicans will not compromise.
What's going to change about that narrative?
Nothing.
Let's go to the audio soundbites I mentioned.
I heard Paul Ryan on Fox this morning.
It was Brian Kilmead said to him, let's uh talk about the supercommittee.
You're not on it.
You said you didn't want to be on it.
I'm sure you would have been put on it.
Now, sitting inside ten days, we see Republicans yesterday were optimistic Democrats weren't.
In reality, where's the progress?
We've offered solutions.
Our negotiators in the Supercommittee put forward plans to actually accomplish this objective.
And we put forward plans that we thought Democrats would agree to.
They keep seeming to move the goalpost and walk away from the table.
Pat Toomey, our senator from Pennsylvania, put together a plan to replace the Bush tax cuts with tax reform, lower tax rates, broadening the base, meaning get rid of loopholes, and that actually brings in more revenue.
So our negotiators already said, let's replace the Bush tax schedule, lower everybody's tax rates, get rid of loopholes and deductions, and you bring in even more revenue to the Federal Government.
More importantly, you grow the economy and create jobs.
And that is what we offered, and that's what the Democrats walked away from.
Okay, so as I heard him right, we've offered all kinds of things.
We've even offered to replace the Bush tax cuts.
And we've shown them how to create more revenue.
It's not about revenue.
The Democrats are not about increasing revenue.
They're increasing government, is what they want to do.
And the way to do that is take money out of the private sector and people's pockets who live there, you and me.
And the way to do that is to raise our taxes.
It'll take money out of our pocket.
It'll cause economic growth to slow down even more.
But it will transfer more money to Washington.
And even if it doesn't significantly increase revenue that much, it still increases government power.
By keeping the private sector small and shrinking.
Which is what the Democrats want.
The Democrats want more of what we are living through now.
Is the simplest way I can explain it to you.
Mr. Limbaugh, are you saying that the Democrats want 9% unemployment?
Yes, Mr. New Castradi.
I'm saying they want 9% unemployment.
They'd be happier with 10% unemployment, but for the next six months they want it reported as 8%.
Are you saying the Democrats would actively lie about the unemployment figures?
Uh yes, Mr. New Castrati, I'm saying that they are lying about the unemployment numbers.
This is simply outrageous, Mr. Lumbaught.
Do you actually believe a Democrat Party wants pain and suffering of part of the Well, every policy they put forth, Mr. New Castrati has brought about pain and suffering.
They are rejecting solutions.
They are rejecting programs which solve the problem, which will grow.
Private sector jobs will grow the U.S. economy.
Because they want the government getting bigger.
What's wrong with the government bigger, Mr. Limbaugh?
That's where people get taken care of.
No, it's not.
If a big government equals people being taken care of, why is there so much squalor, unemployment, and all the other things you continually whine and moan about, Mr. Newcastle?
Because the program is uncompleted yet.
It's not finished yet.
The Democrats haven't finished their great compatriot at work.
Well, um, it's true they haven't finished their work, but that's not rooted in compassion, Mr. New Castrati, and it depends on absolute blittering idiots like you.
For success.
Here's Jeb Henserling himself.
Last night, Larry Cudlow show, CNBC.
Cudlow said moments ago, the supercommittee broke up for the night.
No new deal.
I want to ask you about the threat of super tax increases that could sink the economy.
Not gonna happen, Larry.
I mean, listen, we're facing a jobs crisis and a debt crisis.
We're certainly not gonna exacerbate one by trying to address the other.
Uh, frankly, that's One of the reasons that we are somewhat stymied at the moment.
We have come forth, uh, frankly, with a very good faith offer of putting some tax revenue on the table, but only if we do it in a pro-growth fashion to broaden the base, bring down rates, uh, which is what every, frankly, other bipartisan effort has done.
That would help unleash pro-growth economics by one study.
Okay, so it's the old co cut taxes uh create more jobs, i.e., more taxpayers, i.e., more revenue.
That's their proposal.
Democrats want no part of it.
That's Regonomics.
They don't want more revenue.
They don't want more jobs.
The Democrats are going to reject these concessions.
They reject $300 billion in new revenue via new tax policy.
The choice is easy, folks.
Either the Democrats are hopelessly incompetent or they want this.
There is no third option.
Nobody is this stupid.
This is incompetence or purposeful.
And if it's purposeful, who are the saboteurs?
That is what is happening.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Get your phone calls here in a jiffy, folks.
One other item here before we move on to uh other things.
The Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf appeared before a Senate committee yesterday that had as one of its members, Senator Sessions of Alabama.
And yesterday, the now listen to me on this.
The Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf admitted, he told Senator Sessions that Obama's stimulus bill will shrink the economy down the road.
He testified at a Senate budget committee hearing.
He said the stimulus will indeed, quote, be a drag on GDP over the next 10 years.
Now, we already knew this, but this is the first time that a government official has admitted that Obama's stimulus is nothing of the sort.
This is the CBO.
This is the guy that led the group that scored the stimulus as something the opposite of what he's now admitting that it will be.
They all say, well, in the short term, the stimulus will have a.
They all say that, well, yeah, it will stimulate it.
Well, if it'll have a boost, right.
It'll boost.
What what what's our GDP?
What was their unemployment?
What kind of boost did we get of a zero?
It is going to be something that will shrink the economy.
Over ten years.
CBO director admitted it yesterday before Senator Sessions at a Senate budget committee hearing.
You heard anything about this anywhere?
I Yeah, you didn't see that when you went through the whole AP news roster.
You see that?
Just see anything about that on Reuters?
You didn't.
You did it, and it was not in the Washington Post.
It was not at the New York Times.
You had to watch C SPAN to get this.
You had to.
You had to be seeing somebody had to watch C SPAN to see this.
C SPAN 3.
Precisely.
Doug Elmendorf, CBO director, admits to Jeff Sessions that Obama's stimulus over 10 years shrinks the U.S. economy.
I submit to you that Mr. Omendorf knew this from day one.
So But he was hog tied into saying, well, the initial result of this, the initial impact will be a bit of a boost to the economy.
Which we're seeing.
Of course, they're out there saying, if we hadn't done the stimulus, you know how much worse it would be.
We don't want to contemplate it.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Josephine in Vernon, New Jersey, as we uh go to the phones, first time today, Josephine, thank you for waiting.
Great to have you here.
Thank you, Rush.
I just absolutely am so excited to speak to you today.
Thank you.
Today is our forty third anniversary and my I th my husband's saying all week, What do you want for your anniversary?
I said, Nothing, honey.
I just want to speak to Rush.
How did that make him feel?
Oh, I don't know, but he knows I love I love you, and he's read all your books and he read your brother's book, and uh we're longtime listeners and I have lunch with you every day.
I have radios throughout the house that we have it all the all the dials are set, so I I have lunch with you and at three hours and I said, Today's my anniversary.
No.
I'm gonna listen to Rush and then I'm gonna sit down and read.
Now I have nobody to bother me, but I am so excited, so you made my day.
Are you a uh you a member of Rush Twenty Four Seven, my website?
No, actually we don't have the internet.
We're we are uh retired people and um I go down to the library whenever we have to um you know converse with anybody that my kids they said, Well, we can't believe mom and dad, you don't have electronic that they come here and they hyperventilate.
But we we are people, we live within our means.
So I had a comment and then I had a question in my the comment was it all these kids on Wall Street that are just going crazy up and down and they they think they they have everything belongs to them entitlements.
I'll tell you, Rush, we raised three kids and we told our kids you are entitled to nothing, you're gonna work for everything.
And the kids worked, they worked some jobs, they had paper routes, they all graduated college with honors.
We said we'll help you halfway, but you're not entitled to anything, you're gonna work for it.
Josephine, I gotta stop you here.
I wanted you to hold on to the break, but I just I just want to tell you, you are not in the minority.
The effort is being made to make people like you think the country's past you by, the way you raised your kids is passe, but it's not sit tight, we'll be right back to you.
And we're back and we have with us Josephine from Vernon, New Jersey.
Josephine, I want to tell you you don't have internet.
You have to go to the library.
Yes, because we live below our means.
Well if we can't afford it, we don't buy it.
I just want to tell you, all of those occupy Wall Street kids have iPads.
I know.
I phones.
I know computers, internet, and they're using public Wi Fi down there in the midst of the protest, and you are heading off to the library.
Yep.
Because we we taught our kids if you don't have the money, you don't buy it, you don't spend it, and we like I said, we educated three kids, they worked halfway for it, and uh we have no debt, and we we live a very simple lifestyle, and we're very happy.
And our only big luxury is we bought a little Bosewave radio so we can listen to you all the time.
We have you on in definitely throwbacks.
Huh?
You definitely throwbacks, there's no question about that.
Well, what is the b is is is is your budget constraint uh you you don't you don't want to spend the money on a computer or actual service for the internet if you had a computer.
Or both.
I guess both.
We we just we have an old windows in our library upstairs.
Oh god.
And I'm not gonna believe it.
We don't even have cable.
We took the cable out years ago when my husband retired, and I said, We read quite a bit.
Like I said, my husband's read all your books, and um I'm reading right now after America by Mark Stein.
And um he's talking about Amer what's what's happening.
So we we get a lot of our no wonder you're so optimistic, energetic, and upbeat.
You don't watch television either.
No, because it insults our intelligence.
It's just and my husband misses his sports, but like I said, when our kids come to visit, they're like my son has his laptop and he's like, I can't believe it the way you live.
We took the cable out, the guy the cable guy says, Are you Amish?
I said no.
I says, We don't need it because it's so much it's fifty percent clear.
Well, you know, not having T V and Internet's one good way to keep the kids from coming.
So uh it has its upsides too.
Yeah, yeah.
But anyways, What's the other thing?
You said you had two things you want to ask me about.
Yes.
Well, I uh my comment is about these brats on Wall Street that they're just they they think they're entitled to everything, and they come from these liberal colleges and and it's just amazing.
Yeah, but you also, didn't you want didn't you have a question about Newt?
Yes, I did.
That would be my last that's that was my comment.
And my question is, is he's ahead in the polls, do you think he's going to the the liberals are afraid if he um if he gets in.
No, actually they they're happy that if he gets in, that um Obama's gonna beat him very easily.
Well, here's the uh the basic question that you have is can does Newt have a chance against Obama.
That's what you're really asking me.
And uh see, I think any of them have a legitimate chance against Obama.
I think we're all being fed a bill of goods when we're told that only Romney can beat Obama.
Our own inside the beltway intelligentsia is telling us that only Romney can beat Obama.
That Newt can't because all the garbage, Cain can't because he's too stupid, plus the women problem.
That Santorum can't because he doesn't have any support at all.
That uh who else uh Bachman can't because she's faded away, that Perry can't because he's even stupider than Cain is.
Huntsman, well, interestingly, you have some of our inside the beltway intelligentsia saying if uh Mitt were to fool, really the the uh the the greatest guy we have on the bench is Huntsman.
I mean, this is what No, I've got I've got inside the beltway conservative so-called Republican intelligence who think that.
Now I have here a story.
The reason I wanted to get to your question here quickly, Josephine, is because Dick Morris is weighed in on this.
And he has a piece out today, is Newt electable?
Hell yes, is the headline.
As the debates accumulate, it becomes more and more evident that Newt Gingrich's intellect, experience, articulateness, and depth of knowledge elevate him to the top of the GOP field.
Anyone should be happy to pay admission to watch Newt duel with Obama in a debate.
He's not as charismatic as Herman Cain or as smooth as Mitt Romney, but boy, does he have a brain.
Ever since the campaign started, Newt has always gotten in his own way.
Now he's graciously stepped aside and let his creativity and intellect shine through.
If Newt's the candidate, will his personal baggage drag him down?
Well, it'll hurt, no doubt about it.
His marriages will be dissected with the media, his family will be deluged with questions and well-laid traps.
His ratings will decline as the inevitable baptism of fire begins.
And as with Herman Cain, he will experience a few bad weeks.
But as with Cain, his positive strengths will carry him through the fire and he'll come out the other end.
But once Newt survives the process, he'll be inoculated against the charges.
He will have immunity against these issues.
And here is the core of Obama's problem.
All of the Republican candidates will be so thoroughly vetted and purified by the brutal process that they're going through now that they'll be immune to Obama's charges against them in the fall.
This is the theory.
I'm just sharing the theory with you.
Again, I'm just telling you what's out there.
Just tell you what's on here.
Dick Morris believes, says Obama, on the other hand, survived Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers in the primary when the general election came, they were old hat, they had no electoral punch.
Similarly, Bill Clinton got the nomination only after he had survived Jennifer Flowers and the accusations of draft dodging in November.
Those charges were spent bullets.
It's all good news for Republicans, says Dick Morris.
Nominating process have been so combative, the media scrutiny so searing that the candidates have been pre-screened.
The FBI screening process is nowhere near as intense as the negative research capacities of the media and political opponents.
If nominated, Romney will have survived the accusations of flip-flopping, candle of overcome sexual harassment charges.
Newt's marital history will be yesterday's news, and then we can get on with the business of winning the election and win it, we will, says Dick Morris.
Obama can't survive his 60% disapproval rating on his handling of the economy, the highest ever recorded by CBS during his regime.
Under Obama's leadership, Gallup reports an almost ten point edge for the Republican Party on handling the economy.
Against a generic opponent, Obama draws only 43% of the vote.
With the personal negatives on the Republican candidates aired and used up during the primaries, there'll be nothing for Obama to hide behind.
So the theory that Dick Morris has here is that all of this giant anal exam and all the Republicans are getting is good because by the time the general comes around and Obama tries using the same stuff, it's old hat.
It didn't hurt the Republicans in the primary.
Whoever survives will have survived it all and gotten the nomination.
And so bringing up Newt's marital history, Newt's flip-flops, all this Dick Morris theory, just sharing it with you is spent bullets.
That ammo has been fired, and Newt Gingrich, or whoever the nominee is, still walks the earth.
So Obama will have nothing to say.
That will stick, which will turn the election back toward Obama and his record.
That's the theory.
Now I've I um a lot of people tell me that their choice of a Republican nominee hinges largely on the way they see the debates.
And I've had more people tell me that the only guy that can handle Obama in the debates is Newt.
That Newt will make mincemeat of Obama in the debates, both intellectually and with passion and with subsidive policy.
These same people tell me that Romney will do a McCain in the debates and say I gotta be nice to the minority guy.
I can't, I can't, I can't go out after the black guy.
That Kane will be overmatched, won't know what hit him intellectually.
What I'm hearing from my friend, this bothers me, by the way.
I mean to tell you.
Uh what else am I hearing?
That uh uh Perry, same thing.
That what what I'm hearing is that everybody on our side that talks to me about this thinks that Obama's a super brain.
That Obama is mensa, that Obama's got an IQ of 160 or 180, and that no matter who we put up there other than Newt doesn't have a chance.
And that the debates will are what the election will fit will hinge on.
And I'm sorry, I've just never seen the evidence that debates matter that much.
They do matter to voters' moods.
I mean, I I can't tell you.
How many of you people, just ask you this question?
How many of you people like George W. Bush ever won a debate?
How many of you instead watched a Bush Kerry or Bush Gore debate quaking in fear?
And every time it was Bush's turn to say something, it was, I mean, you had one foot in the bathroom.
Am I not describing most of you?
Okay.
In the first debate with Gore, remember all Gore did was uh sigh over what he thought was Bush's stupidity.
And Gore sighed over what he thought was his inability to make something so simple, understood by everybody.
And it ended up hurting Gore because it was unseemly unprofessional, uh needlessly insulting, and Gore wasn't able to back it up because nobody has ever thought Gore was a brainiac either.
But they did think Bush wasn't.
So we move forward to John Kerry.
And speaking of John Kerry, I've here's another thing.
I've thought of this the other night.
I meant to mention this earlier.
I don't know what just reminded me of it, but it something just did.
One of the reasons I keep hearing from our inside the Beltway Intelligence.
Support Romney is he's the only guy that can win.
You've heard that too.
Romney's the only guy that can beat Obama, and we got to beat Obama.
That's all it counts here.
You gotta get rid of Obama.
Romney is the only guy that can do it.
That just seems to be a feta complete.
It seems to be.
And I'm thinking that's exactly how John Kerry got the Democrat nomination.
Back in 2008, 2004.
If you recall, going into Iowa on the Democrat side, it was Howard Dean's nomination.
Our Dean, as far as a conventional wisdom was concerned, had it wrapped up.
And Howard Dean thought so.
And John F. Carey, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, barely was a blip in the Democrat roster.
He had John Edwards was alive and kicking, and I forget who all was in that race.
And the same thing in 2000, but 2004 is my primary focus.
Then Iowa came along.
And Howard Dean got skunked.
I mean lost Iowa in a landslide, and the Democrats, oh no, what do we do now?
And they immediately opted for electability and they chose Kerry.
Kerry was the winner of the nomination by default because Dean got skunked in Iowa.
The Democrats all panicked when Dean blew up and decided on Kerry on the basis of he's the only guy on our roster left that can win.
They didn't want Kerry.
And as the campaign unfolded, it became obvious they were not really enamored with John Kerry.
But he was the nominee, and they put up a good front.
But I remember even after he'd won the nomination to go to the big Democrat National Committee fundraiser where he's the official nominee and it's the big kickoff to the campaign, and it was the dullest, deadest night I can remember.
And I remember commenting on it here.
And it was because he was chosen by default, and it was because the Democrats thought Kerry, of all the people left when Dean imploded, was the only guy who could win.
And I'm just warning you, if that is the reason we choose a nominee, we're going to be similarly disappointed.
Because it's a defensive posture, it's a defensive position.
It's a, it's, it's a it has nothing to do with policy, it has nothing to do with affirmative, upbeat, cheerful uh uh aspects of who we are, what we believe, and what this country needs, and so forth.
It is a it's a killer reason to nominate somebody, is my point, and we will be back.
Give me audio somebody 23 standing by.
Everybody is is talking about this uh this uh assassin or uh would-be assassin, the guy that fired at the White House.
Now the latest news is that the window that was hit was in the residence quarters of the White House.
This guy fired us right a bullet hit window where Obamas live.
And everybody, Secret Service, killer on the loose, would-be killer on the loose, is Obama safe.
What about the rest of us?
The killer's on the loose, what about the rest of us?
And you know where they're looking for where the killer came from?
Occupy DC.
They think the authorities believe that the killer might have come out of the Occupy movement.
Here's Doug Elmendorf.
Here is the debate or the hearing.
Senate budget committee hearing, Doug Elmendorf at the Congressional Budget Office yesterday.
Jeff Sessions, Senator Alabama, do you still adhere to the view that there would have been a modest GDP reduction as a result of a stimulus package that did pass.
We said wasn't it would be a big boost to the level of GDP in the first three or four years.
And then that relative to what would have happened to GDP without that law, the level of GDP is a little lower at the end.
That is net negative effect on the growth of GDP.
And in the next 10 years, since you're carrying that debt and paying interest on it, and the stimulus value is long since gone.
It's uh would be a continual negative of some effect.
Yes, it's gonna drag on the level of GDP beyond that, if no other actions were taken.
There you have it.
It'd be a drag, representative drag on the level of GDP beyond that if no other actions were taken.
Meaning, if we don't do more stimulus.
Of course, the the joke here is that the stimulus led to any kind of growth whatsoever.
Um those phony charts with stimulus, without stimulus.
Who cares what didn't happen?
Or about the if.
Let's look at what did happen with it and who wants to repeat it.
Nobody in their right mind wants to repeat it.
So anyway, folks, about this debate business.
I got, I'm telling you.
I I doesn't matter who I talk to, there's not.
I mean this.
There's not one exception.
There's not one person I know that thinks no matter who we put up there's going to beat Obama in a debate.
Not one person thinks that we're going to lose it and lose it big, and even if we don't lose it, the media is going to say we lost it.
And it's on that basis I'm being told that some people are going to decide who the best nominee would be.
And I just think it's uh short-sighted, to say the least.
Okay, now my friends are being insulted in the media and the emails I'm getting, rather.
Hey, so-called friends of yours, can any of them run a pizza company?
Could any of them run the National Restaurant Association?
Who the hell are your friends think they are?
How come your friends think they're the arbiters as smart?
I agree with you.
Just back down here.
I'm just telling you.
Tell you what I'm hit with every day.
▲
Export Selection