All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
April 9, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% at a time.
That's the latest opinion audit from the Sullivan group.
They do nothing but audit opinions out there.
And once you hit almost always right, 99.7%, there's not much room left to improve.
I mean, move that up to 99.8.
I'm going to have to be right for the rest of the year.
It's incredible.
By the way, it's an incredible amount of pressure, too.
But I'm up to it.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Grab audio soundbite number two.
Have it standing by again.
This is James O'Keefe, Video Project Veritas.
He demonstrates to the Attorney General Eric Holder just why everybody should be concerned about the lack of voter ID laws.
He walked into Holder's voting precinct and demonstrated that anybody could get Eric Holder's ballot to vote.
Anybody could.
It's a video.
We have the audio to the video, and it shows a young man entering a Washington, D.C. polling place on Nebraska Avenue on primary day, which was April 3rd, just last week, giving Holder's name and address.
The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder's ballot to vote in a primary.
Oh, yeah, if you're here, if you hear who you say you are, here you go.
And O'Keeffe said, no, no, no, I want to go.
He never did say he was Holder.
He just asked if he had a name in his roster there, if Eric Holder was on the list.
Never said he was Eric Holder.
And even with that, he was offered Holder's ballot.
He said, well, wait a minute, I'd feel better if I went out to the car, got my ID, left it.
Well, no, no, you don't need that.
As long as you're here and who you say you are.
The reason I love this is because this is O'Keefe doing what we have always done on this program, demonstrating, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
And he's demonstrated the absurdity of our voting laws.
So what's great about this is that the Attorney General Holder has maintained that it's not a problem.
Voter fraud's not a major problem, and the voter ID wouldn't curb voter fraud.
And all it is is racism.
Because blacks, African Americans feel that it's the government coming after them and trying to find them.
And then after they find them, do something to them.
And because of that, it's racist.
Here's the audio of the tape released this morning at BrightMart.com.
It's last week at Eric Holder's polling place.
James O'Keefe just walks in and you will hear he could have voted as Eric Holder had he chosen to.
Oh, do you have an Eric Holder?
Take care.
Northwest.
H-O-L-T-E-R.
H-O-L-D-E-R.
That's the name.
north west that's the address place please sign me there I actually forgot my ID.
You need it.
I left in the car.
Long as you're here, you're on our list.
And that's who you say you are.
I would feel more comfortable if I just had my IDs all right if I go get it.
I'll be back faster than you can say furious.
I'm not going anywhere.
I'll be back faster than you can say furious.
These poor people are clueless.
Literally clueless.
This guy could have voted as Eric Holder.
Now, what would have happened?
We'll never know.
What would have happened if he had voted as Eric Holder?
And then Holder walks in later and wants if they knew who he was, he might be in jail.
No, maybe not.
Maybe, wouldn't they just give Holder another ballot?
Well, okay, that's if.
Okay, O'Keefe goes in and votes as Holder, and that's vote fraud.
O'Keefe wasn't going to do that.
I'm just hype.
We know it happens.
The reason I'm playing the hypothetical here is we know it happens.
So what would have happened if O'Keefe votes as Holder, and then later today, Holder comes in?
What if the guy doesn't tell him, oh, well, you already voted?
What if he just, oh, oh, you're Eric Holder?
What if he goes to a different guy in the guy says, prove you're Eric Holder?
Because there was a guy in here earlier said he was you.
Well, then the lid would blow.
No question.
And every FBI agent in the world would be tracking down James O'Keefe.
But it's important to note, James O'Keefe did not commit vote fraud.
He didn't say he was Holder.
He didn't vote.
He didn't, he didn't.
It really, it's excellent stuff.
And it does illustrate exactly what this point is all about.
Speaking of, you know, talk earlier about the Obama economy and the war on women and the fact that the American economy is in decline.
And Obama wants you to believe it's in decline because of capitalism.
Obama and the Democrat Party want you to think our economy is in decline because of its own structural failures and inabilities.
They want you to believe that $5 gasoline is what you get with an economy where everybody's out there fending for themselves.
When there's nobody looking out for people, when there's nobody with compassion, when there's nobody guaranteeing fairness, this is what happens.
And of course, the U.S. economy is in decline only because it's in the shackles of socialism.
And it's going to get worse.
There's nothing wrong with this economy.
It's absurd to even make the point.
But here from the Los Angeles Times, higher gas prices cost less public anger this time.
Oh, yes.
Several factors are behind the relative complacency now compared with the price surge of 2008.
Gas prices have soared about 15% the last six months, hitting $3.94 a gallon on average nationwide, $4.29 in California.
The mood of motorists, eh, no biggie.
Partisan finger pointing aside, polls suggest that most people aren't as worked up over gas prices as they were four years ago.
Lara Clayton of Los Alamitos, as she spent nearly $60 recently to fill up her Twinkin town car, said, I think we've all adjusted.
We just don't drive as much, and we're careful to combine errands.
Yeah, no big deal.
Relative complacency.
Until you read the rest of the article, when you read the rest of the article, you find out people are not complacent about this.
They did find people unhappy with this.
63% say gasoline prices have caused financial hardship.
It really is, this is classic.
This is unbelievable journalism.
This is worthy of NBC.
This L.A. Times story worthy of NBC.
No problem with gas prices.
You don't care.
You have come to accept it.
You are now driving with more efficiency in mind.
You are combining your errands.
It really isn't that big a deal to you anymore.
Except for 63% of the people in the poll who say that it is causing financial hardship.
How do you write this story?
How do you have higher gas prices cause less public anger, relative complacency?
In a story that has a poll says 63% say gas prices because so we're left to assume that there's complacency with financial hardship.
I guess that's what the story means.
Eh, no big deal.
Financial hardship, that's just the way it is now.
We're combining our hardships into fewer hardships so that our hardships are more efficient.
And we deal with our hardships as one big bundle rather than a bunch of separate ones, so the impact is less.
The God bless them, U.S. media in the tank for Barack Obama.
You know as well as I do that if there were a Republican in the White House and gasoline prices were where they are, higher than they've ever been, the last thing you would see is stories anywhere about how you are complacent and you're cool with it.
And you're just combining your errands, and it just isn't that big a deal anymore.
You know damn well you wouldn't be seeing those stories.
Seven devastating facts about the Obama economy.
Every fifth man in America is out of a job.
20% of American men are out of work.
Black male unemployment is now at the highest rate it has ever been since the government began collecting statistics in 1972.
Just 57% of black men over the age of 20 are now working.
And according to Maxine Waters, one out of every six African Americans, male or female, are now unemployed.
Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
And every seventh person you see in a car, it doesn't matter wherever you, every seventh person at the movies, every seventh person wherever you go relies on food stamps.
On the last day of George W. Bush's presidency, gasoline prices were $1.84 a gallon.
Today, under Obama, the average price, we just had it, $3.94 a gallon, up from $1.83, and it's just fine.
You're okay with that.
L.A. Times, whoever wrote that L.A. Times story, I'm sure wants to get hired at NBC, probably with Today Show.
And $4.29 out in California.
Easter weekend, Catalina Island, California, drivers saw prices topping $7 a gallon on Catalina Island.
No big deal.
You've come to expect it.
You're complacent with it.
It's just the way it is.
Not worth getting worked up over.
In 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job.
Under Obama, just 56% of college graduates are able to work.
But that's okay.
That's just the new norm.
It's just the way it is.
It's about time the United States found out what it's like to be one of the other countries in the world.
We've had it too good for too long, and we've had it unfairly too good for too long.
We had all these riches and all these wealth and all this advanced technological lifestyle stuff because we stole it from everybody.
It's about time now we found out what it's like.
2006, 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job.
Under Obama, just 56% do.
More than one in four U.S. homeowners are underwater or all more than their homes are worth.
President Obama has created or increased the national debt more in three years than Bush did in eight.
And a record 87, this is a shocking number, and there are others that put this in even different perspective.
But get this: a record 87,897,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force.
When the number of individuals who have stopped looking for a job and or who are working part-time but desire full-time is included, the figure known as the underemployment rate, the real unemployment rate stands at 19.1% in this country.
And it's not because we're in decline.
Well, we're in decline.
But the reason we're in decline is not because of the way the country was founded, not because of capitalism.
We're in decline because of three and a half years of drastically failed Obama policies.
I got a quick time out.
We'll get to your phones when we come back.
Do not go away.
You know, I thought this LA Times story is not the first.
We had last week a CNNmoney.com story.
Same thing.
Rising gas prices aren't as bad as you think.
Gasoline prices, once again, dominating the national debate, but despite rhetoric, high gas prices aren't hurting as much as they used to.
For the average American household, and you average Americans know who you are.
Average American household has an income of over $62,000 a year.
The increase in gas prices represents a relatively small portion of total spending.
It's the same story that claimed it was radio talk show hosts and the Republicans who were whipping people up.
Same story.
So you make 62 grand, your gasoline price gone from $1.87 to $3.89.
It's no big deal.
It's such a relatively small portion of your spending.
CNN and now the Los Angeles Times.
And it's all in coordination with the regime.
Gas prices have gone up faster under Obama than they did under Jimmy Carter.
And Obama doesn't even have OPEC to blame.
He can only blame himself.
Keystone Pipeline, the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
Where are we going on the phones?
Where are we starting?
We'll wait patiently.
So does somebody want to tell me where we're going to go?
Troy, New York, this is Mike.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Russ.
You heard me lead off your show today with the Supreme Court fest.
And, you know, I come from the other side.
I mean, I just want to say that I know you're a smart guy.
This is just conservatives that have found a Supreme Court decision, an activist Supreme Court argument, anyway, that they liked.
The Supreme Court's trying to say that one-sixth of the national economy somehow isn't commerce.
I mean, that's just plat ridiculous.
And after years and years and years of conservatives saying that the Supreme Court is activist on the left, well, this shows you got no principles because this is clearly activism on the right.
At least the argument is.
Let's cut to the chase here.
You're telling me that you want the Supreme Court to decide that the government can tell you that you have to buy health insurance and broccoli.
You know what?
I want the chance to vote on the legislators that pass that law.
If they try to force me to buy broccoli, I know what I'm doing with my vote.
I know what's going to happen to that Congress, and I'm fine with that.
Well, you know what?
We've got 30 years with health care problems.
I don't reason it's one-sixth of the economy.
Your system is broken.
Partisanship is blinding you into total willful ignorance.
If the Congress makes you eat broccoli, then you'll take care of that at the ballot box.
Sorry, that Congress has already spoken.
You throw them out.
You still have to buy broccoli until one of two things happens.
Either the court comes along and says they can't make you do it, which they can't, by the way, or another Congress wipes it out.
But until either of those two things happen, you still have to buy broccoli.
Now, stop it.
This is a lot of people think this is an academic exercise.
You stop and think of it.
You have to buy broccoli.
You have to go to the grocery store.
You have to buy it.
And if you don't, you can get fined.
You want that world.
You want to live like that.
You want to have those requirements.
And you want to say the court can't turn that down because it's politicized or whatever.
You're going to have to get with a program and understand that it is your life that's being affected, not mine.
You guys seem to think that having us lose what we want at the court only hurts us.
What you don't understand is we love you too.
We want the best for you too.
And if we have to save you from yourself, we'll do it along with saving ourselves.
We want everybody to be free.
We want everybody to have a great opportunity for freedom and economic advancement.
We love everybody here.
You've got this hatred dripping out of your voice here, and you don't care what happens to the country as long as the court disappoints me.
Man, what a definition of happiness you've got.
Rush Limbaugh being disappointed is how you live your life happy.
I could say you deserve what you're going to get, but I care too much about you.
Like I care too much about everybody else.
And I don't want you to have to pay a fine when you don't buy broccoli.
And I don't want you to have to buy it in the first place.
If you don't like it, I don't want you to have to buy it if you do like it.
I don't want you to have to buy anything because a bunch of people in Washington command you to.
They don't have that authority.
It's that simple.
Nice try, Mike.
Nick, Weymouth, Massachusetts.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, pleasure to speak with you.
Rush, I need you to tell me, what am I missing here?
This is all about jobs created.
We all know that in the last couple of years, we hit about anywhere between 300,000 to 400,000 jobless claims per week.
But when a monthly job report comes out, they'll say, okay, 300 plus thousand new unemployment claims and 100,000, 122,000, for instance, the last one jobs created.
Well, what am I missing here over a long period of time?
If you calculate the number of jobless claims versus the number of jobs created, it's something like about 30 plus to one over the last two years.
What am I missing here?
Where's the goodness?
And what they're saying is a recovering economy.
There isn't any good news.
They're trying to make you think this is the new normal.
They're trying to make you accept less.
They're trying to put you in smaller cars.
They're trying to put your house with defective light bulbs that are not going to be satisfactory.
You don't deserve to live well.
You've lived too well for too long as an American.
It's not fair to the other peoples in the world who have not lived as well as we have because we have stolen what they have.
It's not fair.
You're supposed to be miserable.
What are you going to do out there, folks, when the government tells you have to buy a gun?
What do you, if they ever told you that, you libs, what are you going to do?
Hey, another question for you, libs out there.
The United States Congress passes a law.
Every home and every apartment building and every business must own and display an American flag from sunup to sundown.
If you don't, the IRS will be around to fine you.
How's that sit with you?
You cool with that?
You have to buy an American flag and you have to display it sun up to sundown.
Come on, Mr. Limbaugh.
You can't take this to the lodge.
Everybody knows that this is not what the president wants.
How can you be so sure?
If once it's established that the Commerce Clause doesn't exist and they can make us buy anything or pay a fine with as much money as they need and with the track record we have, we know who these people are.
How can you automatically say they would not force you to buy a gun?
What if some Republican president in Congress come along someday and think that you have to display the American flag and you have to own one just to get even with you, just to make you miserable?
That's the way you want to play the political game.
Once the doors open, there's no going back at all.
Who's next?
Barbara in Minnekonca, Minnesota.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you for having me, Rush.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Beth.
I was calling regarding the, I went and had a mammogram three weeks ago, and I had to produce my license in order to have my mammogram.
Not only my insurance card, but I had to show them my license because they said.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
You mean to tell me you had to show a photo ID to get a mammogram?
That's correct.
Was a photo ID of your face or another body part?
It was my face.
Okay, and why?
My driver's license because they said so many insurance cards were being stolen.
They wanted to make sure I was the person getting the mammogram.
Aha.
Well, that's a good reason.
So many insurance cards are stolen.
You could have been somebody pretending to be you coming at a mammogram.
That makes perfect sense.
Did it offend you to have to produce your photo ID?
No, it did not.
Not at all.
And so you wouldn't be bothered at all if you had to show a photo ID to vote either, would you?
Not at all.
In fact, you know, polling data on this show, 70 to 80 percent of the American people have no problem with a photo ID to vote.
70 to 80 percent, including a majority of blacks, including a majority of Hispanics, including a majority of minorities.
The only people opposed to this are the Democrat Party and Eric Holder, the Attorney General.
I wonder why that might be.
Why would a political party not want people to have to prove who they are to vote?
That's the way to phrase this.
Why would a political party not want people to have to prove who they are to vote?
So they can win elections because they can't win them straight up.
I mean, liberals are only 30% of the population self-identified.
Oh, not even that, 20% now.
Self-identified.
By the way, from thehill.com, two weeks.
Thanks for the call, Barbara.
I really appreciate it.
Weeks after fighting for the survival of its signature health care reform law before the Supreme Court, the Obama regime will be back in court tomorrow to defend another part of the president's agenda to make Americans healthier.
Isn't that, do you love the way that's written at thehill.com?
Let me read this to you again.
The headline, Another Obama administration health law faces court challenge.
But theHill.com.
Total slaves to the Obama administration.
Two weeks after fighting for the survival of its signature health care reform law before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration back in court Tuesday to defend another part of the president's agenda to make Americans healthier.
So that's what it is.
So that's what the Obamacare bill is all about, making us healthier.
You people at the HILDA, have you no shame?
Just how stupid do you think your readers are?
And the answer is pretty stupid.
That is part and parcel of being in the mainstream media is thinking most everybody other than other journalists that read your work are idiots.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case brought by five tobacco companies who are challenging regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packs and advertisements starting in September.
And once again, the regime is finding itself accused of overstepping its constitutional authority, this time on First Amendment grounds.
The graphic image, by the way, wait, wait a second, before I continue with this, for you libs out there, as many of you know, well, maybe you don't know because you're libs, let me tell you.
Have you ever heard of the S-CHIP program, the state children's health insurance program, S-CHIP, S-CHIP program?
The S-CHIP program is a program which funds health care for America's children.
And do you know who pays for that?
Cigarette smokers.
What do you mean by that, Mr. Lumbaugh?
Cigarette smokers pay for it.
The taxes on the sale of tobacco products, which include cigarettes, fund children's health programs.
And not just S-CHIP.
There are many children's health programs that are ostensibly funded by tobacco taxes.
Now, since we're so broke and nearly bankrupt, it's probably safer to say that nothing is paying for it.
But the taxes levied from the sale of tobacco products are targeted to children's health care.
So suppose while this is happening, we know it is, the government's also trying to convince people to stop smoking.
And they're raising the prices on cigarettes and tobacco products by raising taxes on them.
We got the health people out there telling, don't smoke, it'll kill you, don't smoke, it's putting too much strain on the healthcare system.
Don't smoke, don't smoke.
And yet, while we're telling everybody not to smoke, we are funding children's health programs with the sales tax revenue from tobacco products.
So what happens when people start not being able to afford tobacco products?
Because it's getting too expensive.
So they start buying them on the black market or they start stealing them or whatever because they are addicted to them.
And what happens when the tax revenue to pay for children's health programs starts plummeting below necessary level?
What happens then if the government makes everybody go buy tobacco products, whether they use them or not, to make sure that our very important children's health insurance programs are funded?
Do you realize if they tell you, if they get the power to tell you you must buy health insurance, And if they're going to go out and get 4,000 new IRS agents to track you down, if you don't, make sure they collect your fine.
If they're going to tell you they can do that, what's to stop them from demanding that you buy tobacco products?
They would never do that, Mr. Limbaugh.
Tobacco is a sick, sickly, disgusting product.
Well, but if the revenue, Mr. New Castrati, is not there to fund children's health programs and they can mandate.
What if they're unhappy with the sales figures from the Chevrolet Volt?
What if they just demand that everybody within a certain income level go buy one?
Mr. Limbaugh, you're getting absurd.
This would never happen.
How do you know it would never happen?
Who would have ever thought five years ago that the government would demand everybody, would require everybody to have health insurance?
I'm just telling all of you, all of you libs out there who are just preparing to be happy because people like me may not like the Supreme Court ruling, understand it affects you too.
And if you're going to be forced to buy health insurance whether you want it or not, and you can pay a fine and maybe go to jail if you don't buy it.
Well, who is they?
Snerdley's yelling at me, but this is what they want.
Who is they?
I maintain that there are many different levels, strata, if you will, of liberalism.
You have the leaders.
And then as you go lower and lower, you've got the dupes who and somewhere in these various layers, not all of these people want to be forced to go buy health insurance.
A lot of them are so idiotic, they think they're going to be given it by virtue of everybody else buying it for them.
Anyway, I'm just trying to tell all of you libs out there who are designing things so that your happiness depends on whether people like me are disappointed.
It's going to impact you too.
And you need to be thankful for people like me trying to safeguard and protect your freedom when you're so cavalier about it.
Anyway, the regime is in court because the tobacco companies, five of them, are challenging Obama administration regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packs and advertisements starting in September.
Federal Judge Richard Leon, George W. Bush appointee, ruled in February, quote, the graphic images were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks.
Rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.
Now, the judge's critics argue that his litmus test for what constitutes permissible federal limitations on free speech should not apply to commercial speech, which is not as widely protected as political, religious, or artistic expression.
And they also argue that the government has a compelling interest in protecting public health through regulations.
And the Hills says here that while some conservatives are eagerly anticipating another blow against the Democrats' agenda, congressional Republicans have been largely silent on the matter after many of them voted for the law that made the regulations possible.
Of course they did.
The scaredy cat go along to get along Republicans who don't want to make any waves.
But again, I'm just going to take you back to a hard, cold reality.
Tobacco sales tax revenue is funding children's health care numerous programs all across the country.
Doesn't that logically mean that we would want as many people buying tobacco products as possible?
If the revenue from the sales of tobacco products is protecting our children and their health care, don't we want people buying tobacco products?
No, Mr. Lumbaugh, we don't, because tobacco kills and it prolongs people in a disease that wipes them out and requires extensive health care.
Well, then why are we funding children's health care programs with the sales tax revenue of product that we're trying to get people to stop using?
What sense is there in that?
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I think cigarette smokers deserve a medal.
They're single-handedly taking all this abuse.
They're being forced outside to all of the extremes of weather to engage in their addiction, their habit.
Furthermore, they are funding children's health care programs, and yet they are targeted as the absolute most despicable people in our culture.
But without them, without them, and their purchase of tobacco products, there wouldn't be the money to fund children's health care programs.
And I don't care how that makes you feel.
That is an irrefutable reality.
Got to take a break.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Once again, you have asked the right person the question.
By the way, folks, you might be interested in knowing Facebook has just agreed to purchase Instagram for $1 billion.
Don't you just hate those Wall Street people?
They have all the money and they keep spending all the money amongst themselves.
Those evil.
Oh, wait.
Facebook's not Wall Street.
It's a Harvard guy.
Okay, never mind.
Instagram is not Wall Street.
Never mind.
It's a bunch of young liberals spending a billion dollars to buy stuff that each other has.
Snerdley just asked me a question.
These people at the General Services Administration went on this big party binge in Las Vegas.
Why would they put videos of everything they did bragging about their vacation and all the money they spent?
Why would they post all that stuff on Facebook?
Do you really not know the answer to this?
You really no, not that's not your question.
Now he's changing the question.
I don't know why people would put stuff up that incriminates.
No, no, no.
Specifically, the GSA employees who made a big deal out of spending taxpayers.
This mocking us, this was an in-your-face thing.
This was done on purpose.
These people are in their minds untouchable.
Nothing can happen to them.
They are government employees.
This was in our face.
This was designed purposely.
These party videos and the messages attached, all the fun and all the mocking using taxpayer money, that's an in-your-face move.
This is not look at me, notice me.
There might have been some of that in there, but the target for this was not their friends and said, look at how rich we are.
Look how this was right to us.
This is mocking us.
No question about it.
There's an arrogance here that is unmistakable to me.
And they did this because they clearly were not afraid that anything would happen to them.
They're probably not the sharpest knives in the drawer, you know, and order of fries short of a happy meal, but still, it was a designed poke in the eye at the people.
It was, look at what we're getting away with using your money.
Look at how we are screwing you.
Look at how we are taking advantage of you.
No question in my mind.
Here's John in Annapolis, Maryland.
He is an unemployed economist, it says here.
Great to have you on the program.
Great greetings from the People's Republic of Maryland.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to share a little stat that I used to use a couple of years ago in some of my economic analysis, dealing with gas prices, because we used to follow that quite extensively in trying to kind of formulate which direction we thought things were going.
And for every penny that a gallon of gas goes up, we estimated that it took between $1 and $1.5 billion annually out of the economy.
How did you arrive at that number?
That's an interesting stat, but how did you get there?
You know, there were a couple of us that worked on it.
There was one, I'll call him a veteran economist that came up with the metrics for it.
I could probably get into it with you, but it might take an hour.
Well, we don't have.
Okay, so basically what you're saying is for every penny increase in the price of gasoline, there's that much corresponding decline in economic activity on the part who have to pay that penny for gasoline.
We think of it more as a shift of money.
We used to think of it in terms of disposable income because there's certain set things.
That's exactly right.
That's a great way to put it.
So you're taking a penny of disposable income away times the number of people who have to buy the gas.
I'm surprised it's that little.
A billion, billion and a half, but it makes total sense.
I do believe that.
Back after this.
Our last caller from Annapolis, Maryland's right on the money, and that's why the country's after taxes, disposable income has gone through the floor over the past few months.
Disposable income is really what grows the economy.
The money people have to spend that's in their pocket after they paid bills, taxes, and all that, that's vanishing because of the rising cost of gasoline.
Be right back.
▲
Export Selection