All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:55
January 10, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, well, I guess it's gonna be up to me again today to put all this in perspective.
Man, it's going nuts out there, and it's understandable.
All these attacks on Romney, Bain Capitol.
Romney brought it on himself.
And one of the things that's gonna be interesting to see how and if Romney can defend himself.
I mean, that's all part because I gotta tell you, folks, you think this is bad way till Obama gets hold of all this stuff.
This is gonna be twice as bad as what you're seeing now.
And I know it's irritating to a lot of people.
Here we have capitalism being attacked by Republicans.
Capitalism is under assault by Republicans, and a lot of people are commenting on it, and a lot of people are upset about it, scratching their heads.
Well, I look at this this Romney started all of this with the scorched earth on Newt in Iowa.
Uh you could even say Romney started all this back in 2008 with his super PAC stuff.
This is just people responding, is what happens in a campaign.
And they they try to target what they think is a weak spot.
Uh and and nobody's thinking about, okay, what are we creating for the opposition to use in the general?
Nobody's thinking about that right now because they're always they're all trying to win this.
Umtrary to the establishment and the mainstream media, it's not over.
And the uh other candidates, the newts, the centaurums, the uh parrys, this bunch, uh, they're not willing to concede yet.
But anyway, I want to try to put all this in perspective.
Yes, it is disquieting.
Yes, it is upsetting.
I I understand that there's enough hypocrisy to go around on all sides, and I'll try to apportion it fairly.
What was that?
Uh what was that, Don?
What did you scream at me?
Yeah, there is a lot of hypocrisy, but it's it's it's parfoot, of course.
Anyway, uh folks, it's great to have you here.
Rush Linba, as always, serving humanity simply by showing up here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Now, before I I get started in all of this, I want to uh add to some information we had yesterday, clarify it a little bit, and give you some new information.
Now, first up, despite all that's going on in the Republican primary, of all places, U.S. News and World Report.
Now, this is not a magazine that is any way sympathetic to Republicans.
This is not a magazine that has the desire for Republicans to do well.
There is a poll out in U.S. News and World Reports, been reported by uh Paul Bedard, I think is how he pronounces his name in the Washington Whispers portion of Newsweek.
And essentially it is that Americans, two to one, when asked what they fear the most about the future, say Obama's re-election.
So, while all this stuff on the Republican side is is going on, the news media, you must always remember that while the news media will get into every nook and cranny in detail about the so-called defects or defects and the problems with Republicans at the same time, they are outwardly purposefully ignoring any negatives associated with Obama.
Would you also be interested in knowing?
I mean, that Gallup poll that we had yesterday that showed the uh 40% of a country is now independents, they say they're independents, and 31% say that they are Democrats, 27% say they're Republicans.
If John Hood pointed this out in North Carolina, if you read further, and most people don't, we're a headline society when it comes to news, but if you read further in the Gallup story, what you would learn is that most independents in that Gallup survey, 40% say that they're independents now.
Most of them plan on voting Republican.
Most of them lean Republican.
Vast majority of them.
So there is that.
And speaking of the independence, yesterday we mentioned that Gallup magically came up with that poll, a 10% increase in self-described independence, Is up to 40%, but most of them are Republicans.
And guess what?
Today they have a poll, Gallup does, where they claim that now a majority of conservative voters are ready to accept Romney as their candidate.
But it's not, it's not portrayed as Republicans are excited to accept Romney.
It's that they're ready to bite the boat and say, okay to hell with it, give us Romney.
That's what Gallup is out with today.
That a majority of conservative voters, not just Republicans, a majority of conservative voters now ready to accept Romney as their candidate.
Very convenient on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
So here we have two primaries the Hawkeye Cawkeye with what, 120,000 votes.
We got New Hampshire, what's that, 350,000 votes?
Is that what's the total is 350,000 people are going to vote the Republican side in uh in New Hampshire?
It's a small number of votes that is determining the Republican nominee and so forth.
So it's you have with this Gallup poll out today, clearly, and you know, you can you can be from Mars and vote in the New Hampshire primary.
You don't have to have a photo ID, you can be an independent doing, you could go in there today and vote if you want to.
Remember, we had this where everybody wondered how did Hillary win?
Obama come out of, uh came out of Iowa big time in 2008.
Then Hillary goes into New Hampshire, starts crying.
But she broke down and cried, I forget over what?
And whereas Obama had busloads of people from outside Iowa going into the cork eye, there are a lot of people from outside New Hampshire when it voted for Hillary.
It's not quite that Lucy Goosey, but it's it's not battened down real tight either.
But when it comes, despite all this happening on the Republican side, when it comes to how Americans view Obama going into the new year, there appears to be very little spirit of old Lang Zine.
This is, I'm reading from U.S. News and World Report here.
Instead, according to the new Washington Whispers poll, many voters are not forgetting what they dislike about Obama and want him out of office in our New Year's poll.
When asked what news event they fear most about 2012.
Americans by a margin of two to one said Obama's re-election.
I don't know how widespread this is.
I don't know if you've heard of this before I mentioned it.
Have you heard this, uh Sturdley?
I don't know.
There aren't a whole lot of people who read U.S. news anymore, and I don't know how outside the bounds of U.S. News and their website this has spread, but it's fairly relevant given that U.S. News is not someplace that's eager to see Republicans win.
In this poll, only 16% said that they fear the Democrats won't win a second term.
33% said they fear four more years of Obama.
Now, next to Obama's re-election on the what do you fear most?
31% of Americans said they feared higher taxes.
Which uh I don't does not bode well for Obama, because what the two go hand in hand.
Obama equals high taxes.
So you got Americans two to one, the thing they fear most is Obama's re-election.
And those that had something else as their number one fear cited tax increases.
Well, I think when you add those together, you come up with a pretty decent majority here that fear Obama, period.
Period.
And uh and what he's going to do.
But as to be expected here from U.S. News, it says here the poll does hold out some hope for Obama.
Some 38% of younger Americans, 18 to 24, said their biggest fear was higher taxes.
Just 28% of those same voters said they feared Obama winning.
So the young people don't go who don't vote.
Um don't have as great a fear Of Obama winning, but how stupid are they?
They do say that higher taxes are their greatest fear, but they're not worried about Obama.
What the hell?
Who equals higher taxes here?
Who stands for higher taxes?
Who's been who's been dying and talking about raising people's taxes?
The Democrat Party and Obama.
So here was the question.
As we enter the presidential election year of 2012, what potential news event do you fear the most?
Obama wins re-election 33%.
Taxes will increase 31%.
Iran will get a nuclear weapon 16%.
Obama will lose re-election as a number one fear, 16%.
And North Korea will attack South Korea 4%.
You always have 4% of oddballs in any in any poll.
So while all this is going on with a Republicans, all of this back biting, infighting, all this destructive stuff, I just want you to know that as far as the people of this country are concerned, Obama is not the answer.
They are not looking forward to his re-election, and whatever is happening in the Republican primary is not making Obama look better.
Nothing is.
And this, to me, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, is quite comforting.
Because, you know, I live in the now.
I am Mr. Reality.
I live in Literalville.
And the now and Literalville, look at our country.
What state is it in?
In a sane world, nobody would want anybody to be re-elected who's had anything to do with giving us our current circumstances.
And, apparently, a majority of Americans are of that feeling point of view, which is very, very comforting.
So, to recap, U.S. News.
Americans two to one.
When asked, what do you fear most about this coming year?
Say Obama's reelection.
By two to one.
Gallup poll yesterday.
40% of Americans now say they're independents.
Read deep, read along, and you find out that the majority of them are Republicans.
Or are leaning in that direction.
Now, Obama can't keep employees.
Bill Daly.
You know, the politico.
You talk about being in a tank.
Bill Daly quit as the chief of staff.
You know what the political headline is?
Why Daly had to go?
No.
The headline is why Daly had to quit.
This is a fourth chief of staff in three years.
The economic team has abandoned Obama.
It is snerdly.
It's the fourth chiefest.
The chief of staff in the White House is the person closest to the president, does all the scheduling, controls access to the guy.
You want a meeting with Obama, you've got to go through the chief of staff.
At least that's normally how it has always worked.
May not work that way with Obama.
That's why they leave.
Four of them.
You mean if this if this were Republican president, what the stories would be?
Why is this guy so hard to work with?
What do all these wonderful employees hate about the president?
Why can't he keep his economic team intact?
And they'd be looking as the first lady driving them off.
They'd be looking at any number of possible explanations for this.
But no, Bill Daly leaves and the politico, why this scumbag had to go.
Well, scumbag's not in the headline, but I mean, Daly quit.
He quit a year earlier than he said he would see Obama through the election.
He decided over the holidays to quit, told Obama about it.
Obama didn't want him to leave, and political headlines, why Daly had to go.
Now they could say, Mr. Limbaugh, you're misinterpreting our headline.
All we mean is why Bill Daly thought he had to go.
That's not what the headline like that means.
When you write ahead of time, why Daly had to go, the implication is clear why he had to be gotten rid of.
That's it, it's and so that's that's shoring up Obama.
So look, I I'm not I'm not trying to ignore that there are problems on the Republican side, what's going on here?
Well, I'm I'm hellbent on telling you that it's not sweetness and light and hunky dory and milk and roses and so forth on the Obama side.
There is real trouble there.
And they know it on the Obama side.
Uh Speak of which, if Chuck Todd, I think is the latest that let the cat out of the bag on the Obama campaign preference for Romney.
We had Donna Brazil who let that cat out of the bag on Saturday night, George Stephanopoulos tried to reign her in.
But more of the drive-bys are letting this go.
Now remember about about Bill Daly, Daly was brought in as a response to the Tea Party victories in the midterm.
And Daly was brought in because he has ties to Wall Street.
Daly, that's where he was.
It's where most Democrats are, is on Wall Street.
And Bill Daly was brought in because he had the ear of people on Wall Street.
He was also brought in as a response to the Tea Party victories.
He was a token to show that Obama was moving to the center.
But it never happened.
Obama didn't move to the center, and so the tokenism aspect of Daly blew up.
We now know that Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett didn't want a move to the center, and they really weren't crazy about Bill Daly being brought in.
And so now Bill Daly, Sayanara, Vamos, Adios out of there.
So not only can Obama not get along with members in Congress, he can't get along with people his own staff.
Pure and simple.
I mean, they brought Daly in to further this idea of Obama reaching across the aisle.
Compromise, all that sort of stuff.
But then there wasn't any.
There wasn't any compromises.
Guess who gets blamed for that?
Daly.
So, well, I'm not going to sit here and take the blame for something that my boss isn't even trying to do.
So I'm out of here.
I'll roll my dice with Rom in Chicago.
That's where I'm comfortable anyway.
So it's not hunky dory in the White House.
And there's not robust happiness in there.
And there's not a whole lot of confidence in there.
And it's not going smooth as silk in there.
I don't care what is happening on the Republican side.
In fact, it's safe to say that what's happening on the Republican side is not redounding in a positive way to Obama.
All right.
I'm going to take a break.
I'm going to come back.
And I'm going to get started on trying to put in perspective what is happening on the Republican side.
Because there is so much hypocrisy in this.
It's going to have to somebody's got to wade through it.
And who better than me?
No, that's exactly right.
If this were a Republican presidency, the headlines would be White House in disarray.
Obama can't hold on to his economic team.
They're all gone.
That's a lot of people.
Austin Gouldsby, the economic advisors, two or three of those people gone.
Now the fourth chief of staff out of there.
White House in disarray.
People can't work for this president would be the headline.
Why can't this president hold on to his staff?
Will be the headline.
But instead, what we get is why Daly had to go from the from the political.
Something else, Bain Capital is in the news, obviously.
That's the investment outfit that Romney helped found.
Do you know that according to the Washington Post, this is from last fall, last October.
According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama raised more money from Bain Capital than Mitt Romney has.
Bain Capitol has contributed more money to Obama than they have to Romney.
Well, that's it.
Got it right here.
According to the Washington Post, and actually it's a secondary story.
It's a Washington examiner story from last October, but they are citing the Washington Post.
Obama raised more campaign money from Bain Capital than Mitt Romney.
Now Romney made his fortune working for Bain Capital, but he only raised $34,000 in donations from 18 Bain employees.
Obama, however, has already raised $76,600 from just three employees at Ba.
Now this was this was last fall.
Obama can raise money both for his campaign and the Democrat National Committee.
So it it makes makes it easy to raise money from fewer donors.
But the bottom line is that for all this talk about Romney and Bain Capitol, the majority of Bain Capitol's donations have gone to Obama.
Not to Romney.
Now, I got home yesterday, started, took a little break as always due, and then started delving into the equivalent of show prep for today's program, and I came across a number of pieces.
Jay Nordlinger impromptu is at National Review.
And a number of other people, and they were good pieces.
I just cannot believe that we have Santorum and Newt and Perry out attacking capitalism, out attacking Romney.
What is this?
What is going on?
Republican presidential candidates attacking business.
It's senseless.
It doesn't make any sense.
And it does in one way.
Back in a second.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man with talent on loan from God.
In starting this discussion and trying to explain this, dissect what's going on the Republican side of this with the attacks on Romney and capitalism and so forth, with language, by the way, that's used by the left.
I want to read to you some excerpts of a piece by Jay Nordlinger, who writes a column at National Review called Impromptus.
He says, as I as I said it, I was watching a clip of Romney tangling with an Occupy protester last week.
Romney was defending corporate profits, and I was astounded.
I don't think I'd ever seen a candidate do this.
When the subject of profits comes up, you're supposed to denounce corporate profits or say, hey, nice weather we're having, huh?
And I had to, you know, that gave me great pause.
I had to stop and think, you know, he's right.
Frustratingly so, he's right.
No matter who it is, when the subject of profits comes up on our side, they usually duck it and run for the hills.
Which is maddening.
It is frustrating.
Where are our people taking the occasion to educate people who have been malinformed, ill-informed, or lied to about capitalism from the first day they stepped into public school.
Profits are evil.
They are so evil that even people on our side duck the discussion.
Jay Nordlinger is reminding himself here that he saw a clip of Romney arguing with an occupy protester defending corporate profits.
He said, How unusual is this.
He then goes on to point out that Phil Graham, the former senator from Texas, conservative, and an economist by trade, once explained to William Buckley why he never talked about free trade on the stump.
Now listen to this.
This is fascinating to me.
Phil Graham said free trade benefits almost everybody, but they don't know who they are.
Free trade hurts a few people, and they all know who they are.
What he means by this is that the beneficiaries of free trade don't know how to defend it.
The beneficiaries of free free trade generally do not think of themselves as beneficiaries.
They don't know.
But the few people, and I don't care what happens in an economy, something that happens which affects positively a lot of people is going to affect some people negatively.
Give you my favorite example of this.
70s or 80s, the price of oil got so low, I forgot when it was, that domestic oil producers in Texas and Louisiana capped their wells.
They simply could not bring the oil out of the ground at a profit.
The price was so low.
Now that was a huge benefit to consumers.
Domestic oil price oil plummeting, gasoline prices were plummeting, fuel prices in general plumbing, great for the consumers.
But look what happened to domestic business.
They had to shut down.
So every economic event, while good for a lot of people is going to be bad for some, and vice visa.
You have an economic event such as the subprime mortgage crisis.
That was a disaster for most people, but some people made huge amounts of money on it by going short and understanding what the future was.
So in any economy and in any economic activity, you're going to have people that do well and people that get hurt.
And Phil Graham's point about free trade, the reason he never talked about it on the stump was that the people who benefited from it didn't know it.
The people who are hurt by it knew it.
And they were clearly able to articulate their opposition to free trade based on how it was hurting them.
But the people who benefited from it, the average John Hugh citizen, wasn't able to explain it because he didn't know how it was helping.
So Phil Graham said, I'm never going to have an army that's going to be able to support me.
So when it comes to free trade, I'm going to have to do the right thing as a member of the Senate, but I can't talk about it on the stump, or I might lose the election.
Because most people who benefit from it don't know that they're benefiting from it and can easily be talked into the fact that they're hurting as a result of it.
So over and over.
The point that Neudlinger is making here is that over and over he writes that Romney defends and explains capitalism.
And now, Neudlinger, I'm gathering, I don't know this, but I'm just assuming from the way he's written the piece here that he is for Romney.
He says over and over, Romney defends and explains capitalism, and he's supposed to be the rhino and squish in the race.
The one guy out there defending capital, the one guy out there trying to explain corporate profits to the occupied crowd, he's the squish, he's the moderate, he's the guy that we have the problem with.
I mean, that's what I read in the conservative blogosphere every day.
What do you have to do to be a real conservative?
Speak bad English and complain all the time and belch.
In the Saturday debate, Santorum knocked Romney for being just a manager, just a CEO, not fit to be president, commander in chief.
This was odd for a couple of reasons.
First, Romney did have a term as governor of Massachusetts, meaning he's got executive political experience, unlike Santorum.
And second, since when do conservative Republicans denigrate private sector experience?
And a lot of people are asking, well, what is going on?
Why is Newt denigrating private sector experience and then saying that what Romney does put people out of work?
He's a takeover artist and he slashes jobs.
That's what Obama's gonna say.
Now, about that, we can sit here and wring our hands and lament that this is happening.
Oh no, it is what it is happening, so we have to deal with that.
And so what it does is present Romney with an opportunity to defend himself.
We'll see how he does.
He's gonna have to.
He's being assaulted with way.
It's gonna be very eye-opening for a lot of people.
I mean, I live in Realville.
I'm telling you, what happens is what is.
That's literal, that's real.
It may be totally stupid, it may be totally unfair, it may be outrageous, it may be self-defeating for these Republicans to start riving into big business or ripping into capital, but it's happening.
And the guy they're ripping into now has a chance to defend himself, to acquit himself and take the occasion to explain all this and make it sound good.
That's how you that's how I look at it what are you laughing at, Sterling?
I mean, what what could possibly be wrong about this analysis?
Well, well, I can't, I'm not being able to put a stop.
What am I gonna say?
Look, you Republicans, grow up and stop this.
I'm not gonna be able to put a stop to this.
That's uh we'll see.
At any rate, I'm not through here.
I'm just basically barely having scratched the surface here.
Back to Jay Neudlinger at impromptu's.
About 800 times, Newt Gingrich told us read a particular newspaper to see what a mean capitalist Romney is.
What was the newspaper?
Knew it encouraged everybody to read.
It was the New York Times.
Well, that's a great slogan for conservative victory.
Read the New York Times.
What the hell are we doing?
This is Neudlinger.
What the hell are we doing here?
Conservatives citing the New York Times as evidence that one of our guys is unfit.
What is happening?
And this is this is bouncing around this whole primary now.
And I'm going to tell you, it it happened because you can say it's childish.
You can say, well, I'm not going to, I'm not judging anything.
I'm just people are asking me, why is this hell or it's happened because in 2008, Romney was hated and despised by Huckabee and Julie Io's guys because he was running his super PAC operation that are somebody was, and running negative ads long before any of the other candidates had any money.
They hated him.
And that's why McCain, Huckabee teamed up in West Virginia.
That's why they teamed up in uh in Florida.
Now you'll get a look at it from Newt's standpoint.
Newt.
Last month, uh, after a surge, Newt goes down, says I'm the nominee.
Okay, that's it.
I'm the nominee.
We're three or four weeks away from the Hawkeye call.
Not one vote's been cast.
Newt's other thing on the nominate kid.
What's Romney do?
Well, what every other political candidate's gonna do?
Start running in negative ads about Newton.
And Newt thinks he's a nominee.
Here come these negative ads, scorched earth, maybe a bunch of lies and so forth.
Newt says, What the hell is this?
Newt doesn't have any money to rebut it.
I told you last week, Newt's laser-like focus is now destroying Romney.
And he and Santorum are doing a good cop, bad cop routine in that regard.
That's what Newt's out to do.
Destroy Romney because of what Romney did to Newt with the super PAC and the ads in Iowa.
And Romney's ads took Gingrich out of the equation.
There's no question about it.
So Newt, thinking he was a nominee, now sees himself aced out by Romney's ads.
What he's gonna do.
Exactly what he's doing.
Here, Mitt.
How about a taste of your own medicine, pal?
So Newt ended up having some money donated, enough to form a super PAC, and they're now doing the whammy on Romney that Romney did to Newt and has been doing to other people.
Hello, it's politics.
Now, in the process, in the process, we've got Republicans and people trying to convince us that they are conservatives, ripping capitalism.
And we're all going, good Lord, what the hell now is happening?
We got a sitting duck in the White House, we got a Marxist in the White House, and our campaign has devolved into our nominee being attacked for being a capitalist.
And a lot of our primary voters, a lot of people haven't voted yet, but uh will in their upcoming a lot of conservatives are looking at this and see a circular firing squad that's taking place.
What our nominee?
No, but but they're all nominated our candidates being attacked.
I don't know who the nominees are, but every every one of them is being attacked.
The frontrunner, I should say, the presumed nominee, uh, is now being we got a Marxist in the White House, and our nominee is being we our people won't call Obama what they're calling Romney.
And this people are scratching their heads going, what the heck here?
We won't even get close to we got a genuine Marxist in the White House.
And our presumptive nominee Romney says, I just think he's in over his head.
Meanwhile, Newt and the boys are out there calling Romney a Marxist, essentially, or a uh, well, not a Marxist, they're saying he's an evil, rotten capitalist, and we would prefer a Marxist.
Not they don't say that, but by extension.
Then Romney ratcheted it up by talking about how he likes to be able to fire people.
And I told you yesterday what was gonna happen with this, and it's happened.
They take those five words, and now Romney's had to call a press conference to explain this.
So I'm sorry, I I I just laugh.
I don't know what else we can do here.
We have a genuine Marxist in the White House.
We got the Republican primary attacking the leader right now, the front runner, uh as an evil rotten capitalist, which has people befuddled and scratching their heads.
When the frontrunner runs around, talks about how he likes to be able to fire people, which, if in a proper understanding of capitalism and context, it makes perfect sense.
If you if you've why do you want to be saddled with people who aren't doing a good job?
Why do you want to have to be able or have to be required to keep people on a job who are not working right?
But then it plays right into this heartless, cold, cruel, mean-spirited caricature.
Romney is now, for those who play Monopoly, Romney is now the old guy in the tuxedo and the top hat.
Boardwalk in part just I don't know.
It's it's amazing.
But there's still either there's more to this.
Because at the end of the day, well, this, and I've got to take a break here, but let me let me take the break.
Otherwise, I'm gonna have a real problem.
Let me do it.
We'll be back in a second.
Okay, so Romney is out there saying that he likes being able to fire people.
Folks, don't we want somebody in the White House who's gonna fire people?
How are we going to reduce the size of government?
Don't we want somebody who loves firing people in the white?
Isn't that what we're all talking about here?
We don't want them to quit.
We don't want to wait for them to quit.
We don't want buyout packages.
We don't want seven, we want to fire people.
Do we not?
If we are consistent, we are we are limited government small, we've got to roll back the size of it.
What the heck are we talking about here?
So here we got a guy defends profits, we jump on him.
We conservatives, Republicans, jump on him.
We got a guy who talks about how much he likes firing people.
We jump on him.
I mean, there's all kinds of reasons, jump on Romney, but not for this.
Now here's another the idea that Romney is some big capitalist, I have to take issue with that.
Did not Romney support TARP?
What was TARP?
And by the way, if you think what Newt's doing to Romney is bad, or Sandorman, the others, whoever is, wait till Obama has his run.
Obama wants to run against Romney for all of these reasons that you're seeing here.
That's why I say it, it might actually be fortunate here for Romney to develop a chance, have a chance to defend himself, because this is what's coming.
I don't care who our nominee is.
This is what's coming from Obama.
Mean-spirited, extremist, racist, uh, wants to fire people.
Capitalist wants profits, wants big rich people to get richer, this is what's coming.
Occupy Wall Street was created by Obama specifically to campaign against Romney.
And I don't want to hear anybody argue with me about this because you're just gonna beat your head against the wall because you know I'm right about this.
And more and more members of media are starting to let the cat out of the bag that the White House wants Romney.
Okay, so he's got a chance.
But TARP, folks, TARP, what was TARP?
TARP.
There was not one thing capitalistic about TARP.
TARP was the biggest failed bailout using taxpayer money of defunct businesses in history.
And Romney was in there supporting it.
Romney supported TARP.
Bush supported, they all supported it.
Santorum didn't support TARP.
So if we're gonna have a campaign here where uh uh we're I got a time problem here again.
I can't start on another thought, but I'm just telling you this.
We're gonna be real careful on how we start defining capitalism how we plug people in it, because there's nothing that you we have got to stand up.
The Democrats want the economic collapse 2008 to be laid at the feet of capitalism, and capitalism was not being practiced prior to 2000.
That's not why we had the economic collapse.
Now, see, the thing that we know now is that TARP was not a bailout.
It was a slush fund.
TARP was a slush fund, and a year or two after it, there were still two or three hundred billion of it unspent.
There was no crisis to save the world economy that TARP was going to fix.
▲
Export Selection