All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
April 17, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, there's a new report out that down in Columbia, Cartagena, the Secret Service brought 20 or 21 women.
That's a lot of contraceptives that they had to supply.
Well, it's anywhere between 11 guys and 20 guys and 20 and 21 women.
And I'm assuming they're hookers.
Can you think about Bill Clinton here?
Does anybody know where he was?
Hi, folks.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaugheibnet.com.
So Obama's out in the Rose Garden today, campaign appearance, and starts trashing big oil, starts trashing the oil speculators.
Let me ask a question.
Aren't these green energy people all speculating?
And are they not speculating with our money, taxpayer dollars?
They're all getting loans and whatever from the federal government, from Obama, from his stash.
You have Solyndra.
You have all these solar firms that either have filed for bankruptcy or on the way.
You've got wind energy companies that are biting the dust.
All of this, the Chevrolet Vault is having trouble.
All of this green energy stuff is literally imploding.
It is collapsing.
Isn't Obama, in fact, a green energy speculator?
Aren't all of these people speculating?
Aren't they all rolling the dice?
In fact, the oil speculator, they're not breaking any laws.
The Democrats have been looking for crimes in big oil and its related areas for 30 years.
The Democrats have been looking for crimes in conservatism.
They've attempted to politicize political disagreements or criminalize political disagreements.
And now Obama wants to jump all over the oil speculators.
Just like last year, he promised he's going to really crack down on these people.
And today, he promised he's going to really crack down on them again.
And Jackie Kalmas at the New York Times is all Twitter.
She's all excited about this.
But if you ask me, all these green energy people are nothing but speculators.
Obama is nothing but a green energy speculator.
Obama has spent, folks, over $100 billion, taxpayer dollars, not his.
These firms are not investing their own money.
These are taxpayer dollars.
And by the way, they're donors.
Every one of these people are donors to Obama.
And so some of this money that Obama is quote-unquote loaning them to help start their businesses up is all coming back to him in the form of campaign contributions.
And the total is the best we can come up with now.
Obama has spent over $100 billion taxpayer dollars speculating in green energy.
And what do we got for it?
What penalties should Solyndra have to pay?
What penalties should the other solar firms have to pay?
What penalties should all of the wind energy firms that are going monk have to pay?
What penalty should Obama have to pay?
The other scandal of the day, the news is that 11 of those Secret Service agents who were allegedly involved with Colombian hookers have been stripped of their security clearances.
Which makes me wonder, does Bill Clinton have a security clearance?
You would think that he does, being a former president.
I know Clinton cannot practice law before the Supreme Court, but I wonder if he's lost his security clearance like these Secret Service agents have.
Let's go back to Obama in the Rose Garden, a campaign appearance.
We got three more sound bites here.
These big oil cougars, these big oil speculators, they're cheating you just like Enron.
Audio soundbite number 23.
We can't afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions while millions of American families get the short end of the stick.
That's not the way the market should work.
And for anyone who thinks this cannot happen, just think back to how En-ROAD traders manipulated the price of electricity to reap huge profits at everybody else's expense.
Yeah, well, how about you, sir?
How about all the speculation you're doing in this defunct nothing-there business called green energy.
So once again, it's the regime attacking another private sector firm.
By the way, for those of you new to the program and if you're young, one of the ways that Obama goes after big oil is to talk about how much their executives get paid.
What I say the other, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil, the total pay package was, I forget what it was, between 30 and 50 million.
No, no, it was not 50.
It was 30 million or something, counting the salary, the bonus, the stock options, and what have you.
And what does Rex Tillerson do?
Well, Rex Tillerson runs a company that goes around the world, invests more money than you and I could ever think of into finding oil and then drilling for it, bringing it up to the ground, then transporting it to refineries so that it ultimately ends up available to consumers.
That's what Rex Tillerson does, and that's what all the CEOs of big oil do.
They actually work.
They are engaged in producing, finding, producing a product that everybody needs and prospers from.
And so Rex Tillerson, what, makes $30 million a year.
Now, for those of you who are young, that's just outrageous.
I need to ask you to go check the salaries of your favorite movie stars and see what they get per movie.
Tom Cruise, I saw the other day, gets $25 million a movie.
Now, that's fine and deal.
What is Tom Cruise actually doing for you?
I saw somebody on this list of actors gets $40 million or made $40 million list.
I don't remember the name.
But what is that actor doing for you?
My point is that every time this salary disparity comes up, the usual comparison is between big oil and teachers, big oil athletes and so forth.
All these athletes think, well, what are they doing for you?
I mean, they're entertaining you, giving you an escape.
Same thing with the actors.
But what are they really doing?
If you want to start trying to justify the fairness, which I don't agree with, by the way, I think it's anybody's business.
But still, if you want to think about it that way, I would love to try to change your mind if you believe that people, CEOs at big oil, are somehow screwing everybody, unfairly compensated.
When look at what they do, we learned the other day the CEO of CBS, Les Moonvis, $69.9 million, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
But what has CBS done for the country lately?
Expanded face the nation from 30 minutes to an hour.
Big whoop.
My point is, you're going to find these disparities all across.
And you know what?
It's the market.
Les Moonvus made a grand total of $70 million because the people involved think he's worth it.
Same thing with Rex Tillerson at ExxonMobil.
Lee Raymond was the CEO of ExxonMobil before Tillerson.
He got paid a golden parachute to go away, $300 million.
Everybody is, hell, that's not fair.
What the market does.
But just compare it to all of these entertainers and so forth.
It's one way of putting this all in perspective.
Here's Obama.
Some speculators can reap millions while millions of American families get the short end of the stick.
We're getting the short end of the stick every day with this administration and its policies.
Look what it's doing to virtually every important sector of our economy, shrinking it.
And all these investments in roads and bridges and schools, where is it?
It hasn't happened.
So-called infrastructure investments, schools investments.
What about all the speculation and green energy that's going belly up, firm by firm by firm?
So here's Obama.
He wants more cops on the beat here.
He wants more people spying on and investigating big oil and the speculators.
I call on Congress to pass a package of measures to crack down on illegal activity and hold accountable those who manipulate the market for private gain at the expense of millions of working families.
Imagine if the NFL quadrupled the number of teams, but didn't increase the number of refs.
You'd end up having havoc on the field, and it would diminish the gain.
It wouldn't be fair.
That's part of what's going on.
It wouldn't be fair.
Yeah, well, once again, crack down on illegal activity and hold accountable those who manipulate it.
How about Fast and Furious?
For every one of these assaults that he makes on a private sector industry, we can counter with multiple examples of his own incompetence, wasting taxpayer dollars.
General Services Administration, anybody.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll get to your phone calls when we come back.
So don't go away.
By the way, folks, I would like to invoke the Hillary Rosen theory.
Hillary Rosen said of Ann Romney, she's not qualified to advise her husband on the economy.
She never worked a day in her life.
Bill Maher said, she never got her butt out of the house 7 o'clock in the morning.
She ain't qualified.
Ben Romney has no business listening to his wife.
Last I looked, Barack Obama had not spent a day in the oil industry.
I don't know why we should have to listen to anything he says about it.
He doesn't know anything about it.
Obama's never been in the oil business.
All he's ever had is contempt for it.
He's never been in the healthcare business.
He's never been in the housing market.
What the hell does he know about anything?
He knows nothing about any of this stuff.
What Obama knows is big government.
What Obama knows is power.
What Obama knows is command and control, central authority, mandating everything for everybody, controlling everything.
Because only Obama knows what's fair, and only Obama knows how to make things equal.
Only Obama knows how to end discrimination.
Obama doesn't know anything.
He's the least qualified guy in any room he enters.
Why in the world does anybody invest in Obama?
Vast majority of the American people do not think Obama should have anything to do with our health care business.
They don't want any part of his health care bill.
Some of the same talk, why should we listen to Obama on the oil industry?
He doesn't know anything about it.
All he does is have an intense dislike for it.
Grab audio zone by 25.
We just played these sound bites of Obama in the Rose Garden, condemning big oil, speculators, the American people, virtually anybody that ever comes into contact with oil.
So on CNN's newsroom after Obama spoke in the Rose Garden, they had the anchorette, Kira Phillips, talking with a chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi, about the president's speech, and they couldn't figure out what he was talking about.
Kira Phillips said, How immediate could the impact be on gas prices be?
Allie, right there toward the end, the president basically said it's not going to happen real quickly.
But I can tell you, market manipulation, something will happen in that regard right away.
And I should remind you: back when George Bush, George W. Bush, in his administration, I forget which term it was, but he just talked about opening the strategic reserves, and it dropped the price of oil on the world market immediately.
Not for long, but it did.
The effect can be immediate.
Well, anyway, let's listen to Ali Velshi, who is in the Obama camp, state-controlled media, try to tell Kira Phillips exactly what it was Obama was talking about.
I wish he wouldn't say things like this.
That's how we're going to solve the problem.
I don't know what he's talking about.
In the end, that speculative part of the oil price is a very bumpy, jagged, and somewhat disconnected line to the price that we pay at the public.
But for the president to walk away and say, that's how we solve the problem, I would have to say, if I were those political people, I would say, almost pants on fire.
There's Ali Velshi.
Wants Obama to triumph.
Wants Obama to succeed.
And has to admit, he has no idea what he's talking about.
I don't know what he's talking about.
I don't know what he's saying.
And neither does Obama.
It was all on the teleprompter.
It's what somebody else wrote for him to say.
And just the usual day-to-day condemnation of another great American and worldwide industry.
Okay, to the phones to Clarkston, Michigan.
Charlie, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Well, thank you for taking my call.
Yeah.
Well, I used to work for General Motors at the Tech Center in Warren, Michigan.
And we used to have these yearly all-people's meetings and a big auditorium.
Engineers, designers, and such would be there.
They go over the, you know, the year progress.
And afterwards, they would open up questions on the floor.
And a young gal, probably right out of college, got the microphone and asked Bob Lutz, who was one of the officers taking questions, if he was concerned about global warming.
It was about 10 years ago.
And his take on it was: well, whatever cars put in to the atmosphere in terms of carbon dioxide is a pittance compared to what the Earth puts in there from scientific study.
And he said, don't worry about it.
The cars are much cleaner now than they've ever been.
They get better gas mileage.
And he said that, and don't worry about the fact that we don't have gasoline because technology is such now that it seems like we have more gasoline the more we use, the more we discover.
And so he basically allayed this lady's fears about it.
So what are you saying here?
10 years ago, Lutz didn't believe in this global warming stuff.
No, he did not.
Not at all.
And everybody couldn't wait to hear what Bob Lutz had to say because it was always politically incorrect and he's very charming and smart.
And this was his take.
Don't worry about it.
It's 10 years ago.
Well, I know.
Look, let me jump in here.
Let me jump in with both feet.
Let me do a cannonball.
Back in 2008, Bob Lutz said, global warming is a crock of excrement.
When I went to General Motors and got the tour of the design center, Lutz showed me some things they were working on, and they had a mock-up.
And I remember Bob Lutz designed a state-of-the-art luxury Cadillac 12-cylinder, and they had a mock-up of what the car would look like.
in one of the areas they showed me.
And I remember the fact that it made news when he announced that this was something on their drawing board they were looking at.
And I asked him, and it was a beautiful car, by the way.
The big think Mercedes-S-Cloud, think bigger than that, think Maybach, think, think Rolls.
I mean, it was going to be Cadillac's entry into that market.
12-cylinders, 600 horsepower, 500 horsepower.
It's going to be big.
And he said, I can't make it.
Emission standards coming down the line, cafe and all that.
Car would never qualify within our fleet standards.
It's just, I can't build it.
Can't build it.
Now, Charlie here talking about Lutz being right on the money when it came to man-made global warming.
It was a crock and this kind of thing.
Lutz, by the way, the remark in 2008, Bob made that crack during a private lunch with reporters in Virginia.
This according to D Magazine.
And he followed it up by saying, I'm a skeptic, not a denier, having said that, my opinion doesn't matter.
And he says that the reason he's pushing the vault is nothing to do with really global warming.
He's motivated by the desire to replace imported oil than the CO2 argument.
So, but I'm just remember now when I met Lutz at the cigar dinner, I thought I was talking to somebody Sympatico.
Well, I know I was.
And I'm saying nothing more than that now.
I'm not speculating.
I'm just this guy worked at Detroit saying basically the same thing.
But Lutz doesn't own General Motors anymore.
The United Auto Workers owns it along with Obama.
And there's no question Lutz was and is popular at General Motors.
He'd love to have the perfect guy to have at a dinner party.
A guy flies his own jet fighter plane.
A picture of it's on his business card.
He's a Renaissance guy, really is.
But I'm not getting his emails.
He says he's sending emails to me.
I'm not getting them.
I would reply.
No, not getting his emails, but my Bluetooth in the car is being hacked.
Yeah, the apple.
Bob Lutz was a Marine fighter pilot.
Anyway, who's next?
Charlie in New York.
Two Charlies in a row.
Charlie, great to have you, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
I called because I was listening to your problems earlier about your car and your Bluetooth.
And there's one piece I think that you're not looking at correctly.
If you take your car, take a piece of paper and put your car on it, draw a circle around your car.
Draw another circle around that circle.
And then that circle is about, let's just say, 100 feet.
Inside of that second circle, you can have Wi-Fi.
I don't care how you're doing it because I don't understand your configuration that much.
But inside that circle, you might be able to use Wi-Fi.
Once you break out of that second circle to go to the cellular network or the satellite network or whatever it is, you are no longer capable of using Wi-Fi.
No, no, you didn't understand my explanation of my setup.
There is no circle and I didn't leave the Wi-Fi.
I'm receiving a sell signal that's being converted to Wi-Fi by my Verizon LTE hotspot, which I've been doing for a year.
All right, folks, you may remember last week I told you that 2IF by Tea, for those of you new to the program, 2IFBYT.com is the best iced tea in this country.
It's the best flavored iced tea.
It's the best, it's just the best.
From the regular to the raspberry to the peach to the blueberry, it's just unbeatable.
And it's all available at 2IFBT.com.
Features me.
It's my tea.
Features me on the label as Rush Revere.
And last week, we told you that we had Grand Prize Sweepstakes winners here at the Southern Command to meet me and the staff, watch the program.
There were eight of them.
They were all incredible people.
Had a great time hanging out here at the studio.
Well, it's tea season now.
We're getting into the spring and coming up on Memorial Day, 4th of July, tea season, if you will.
And we are kicking it off with a special promotion called the Ride of a Lifetime Sweepstakes in honor of Paul Revere Day.
Now, here's the deal.
Starting right now through tomorrow at 1159 p.m. Pacific, you have the chance to win a special, full, all-expense-paid trip to New England, the home of our good buddy Paul Revere.
You'll ride through the streets of historic Boston.
You'll visit iconic landmarks such as the old North Church, the Freedom Trail.
And while we're struggling to hold on to our founding, what could be better than a trip to where history was made?
Where our founding fathers took a stance to protect the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the birthplace of the now famous brand 2 If by Tea.
One If by Land, Two If by Sea.
This is Two If by T. We're going to have two grand prize winners.
Each grand prize consists of a trip for four people.
That's right, four people per trip.
Perfect for a family or group of friends.
Most people who give away trips do it for two.
Not us.
We do it for four.
And there are two grand prize winners.
So we're going to be sending eight people on this trip.
The prize includes round-trip airfare to Boston, three days and two nights at a well-known prestigious hotel, a hotel I would stay in, by the way, dinner at a landmark restaurant in Boston, and of course, a full detailed tour of the city.
Grand Prize winners from previous sweep stays can attest everything we do here.
Two if by tea is top-notch.
In addition to that, there will be six second-place winners.
Each of them receives a Rush Revere treasure chest made up of 2F by T memorabilia and a brand new Apple iPod.
Now, to enter, all you do is visit 2ifbytea.com right now.
That's it.
Everybody that purchases a case of tea is automatically entered to win.
And by the way, a special price, $19.99 a case.
That's six bottles in a case of the best tea that you have ever had.
Don't forget that.
That's crucial.
When you taste this, you're not going to believe it.
Whatever flavor you buy, you're going to want to taste the other flavors as well.
And this is a special price for this special promotion, $19.99 a case.
So you have from right now through April 18th, Paul Revere Day at 11.59 p.m. Pacific to be one of our next grand prize winners at 2ifbytea.com.
All the official rules are posted on the site, as well as additional details.
It's all right there.
And so two grand prize winners, four people, each grand prize, total eight people, on a three-day, two-night trip to Boston, all expenses.
Twoifbytea.com.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney.
This is very delicate.
Daniel Henninger wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal last year saying essentially that, oh yeah, our prizes put the GSA to shame.
Oh, absolutely.
The only thing we don't give away are contraceptives.
You have to supply your own contraceptives.
Two if by tea will not provide contraceptives.
Have you seen that picture, by the way, of the GSA guy in a Las Vegas hotel in a bathtub with a bottle of wine?
I thought C. Alice.
I have a C. Alice commercial.
His people in the bathtub.
None of that on a two-if-by-tea trip.
Not if you want it, you can bring it, but we don't give that away or contraceptions.
That's all up to you.
Daniel Henninger said Mitt Romney is not naturally conservative.
He's going to have to be nudged in that direction.
That's true.
Not a particularly unique point, but still true.
Now, on Sunday night, Romney was here in Palm Beach.
Big fundraiser.
Word has leaked out about some of the things that he said to the donors.
These are things that he's not said publicly in terms of specifics on policy.
And one of the things that he talked about was a tax plan.
He wants to lower rates, but eliminate some deductions for the rich.
And I have to tell you, folks, I'm not comfortable with the Republican nominee talking about special plans for the rich, special plans for Hispanics.
That was part of it, too.
He was saying we're going to have to do some special outreach for Hispanics.
We have special outreach for women.
No, we don't.
Not as conservatives.
We don't have to have special policies for this group and that group.
One of the tax ideas was to eliminate, and I get this, eliminate the mortgage deductibility on second homes.
Now, that's populism.
We're talking an amount of money that's no different than the Buffett rule.
It's a shame.
His capital gains idea is also a little curious because it too is targeting the rich, anybody making over $200,000 jointly, and introduces progressivity into the tax, which seems fair or what have you.
These are not the things that a Republican, much less a conservative nominee, needs to be talking about or saying.
This is Rockefeller Republicanism.
It's identity politics.
It's the kind of stuff that the left talks about.
Nicole Jelinas at the corner, National Review.
If any of you are struggling or have struggled with figuring your capital gains at dividends taxes this season, it's worth remembering that Mitt Romney says he would eliminate capital gains, dividends, and interest taxes for families earning under $200,000 adjusTedros income, which is most people.
Now, the idea is solid.
It would encourage people to save and invest outside their 401ks, A necessity when the country faces a retirement crisis.
Cutting taxes on all forms of saving and investment would avoid distortions in the marketplace, too.
By contrast, a plan that favored, say, dividends over interest would distort the marketplace by pushing people toward one type of savings and investment over another.
But it would introduce a progressive tax system on investment taxes without raising taxes on the wealthy.
It would take a 15% tax rate on individuals and capital gains for wealthier earners.
She thinks that the approach seems fair.
But what I'm hearing is a Republican nominee or a presumptive nominee focusing on the rich, the wealthy.
This is a premise that's been established by the left.
And we don't hate the rich.
We don't despise them.
We don't begrudge them.
They're role models.
They have things to teach people.
Something tells me that Mitt Romney's a little embarrassed of his wealth and wants to, I don't know, make excuses for it, which is not necessary.
He should be happy.
He should be proud to explain how it happened.
There's nothing wrong with how it happened.
There was nothing ill-gotten.
There's nothing criminal.
There's nothing in any way shady about it.
There's no reason for guilt.
There's no reason to feel nervous about it other than if you want to fall prey to what the Democrats accuse you of.
But that's accepting their premise.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Here's Diane Sawyer last night on ABC's World News tonight.
She interviewed Romney and during a discussion about his financial success, she said this to him: The speaking fees, the Cadillacs, the story out now that there's an elevator for your cars in the new house you're planning in La Jolla.
Are you too rich to relate?
What is this?
See, this is now to me, this would be one of the biggest softballs that had ever been thrown to me.
This would be a grand slam home run just waiting to be smacked out of the park.
Then I'd have a few words for Diane Sawyer.
Diane, are you too rich to relate?
Is your husband Mike Nichols too rich to relate?
What is it about being rich that makes people unable to relate?
Was Ted Kennedy too rich to relate?
You see, what happens here is that liberal rich people run around and talk about how they're not paying enough taxes.
They're willing to pay higher taxes.
And so they inoculate themselves from any criticism.
And they're said to relate to the little people and so forth.
The same questions asked of conservatives.
Oh, Coco's, well, I got to put on defensive immediately.
Here's Romney's answer, by the way.
We don't divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature.
We're one nation under God.
We come together.
This is a time when people of different backgrounds and different experiences need to come together.
Is the fairness concern about ending?
I think it's unfair that this president's been in office three and a half years and 93% of the people who've lost their jobs have been women.
Well, see, the problem, we don't divide America based upon success and wealth.
The Democrats do.
Change the concept of wealth to the concept of success and start talking about it.
Change the concept of wealth and equate it to hard work.
Change the concept of wealth to being a uniquely American aspiration.
Change the concept of wealth to something everybody wants to be.
Everybody has that dream.
Everybody wants that opportunity.
Some people are willing to work harder at it than others.
But there's no reason to be defensive about this.
This question that she asked him could be asked of Obama.
It could be asked now of Bill Clinton.
It could have been asked about John Edwards.
It could be asked about John Kerry.
Got to take a break.
Sit tight.
Much more straight ahead here on the EIB network after this.
No, look, what I don't understand from Romney is why class warfare.
And it's what it is.
If you're going to start emulating the Democrats on, well, we're going to have a different set of rules for the rich, then you're pandering.
It's populism.
You're emulating the class warfare of Obama, of the Democrats.
And it's not necessary.
Why not eliminate everybody's deductions?
Go and have different tax rates if you want, but eliminate everybody's deductions.
If we're going to eliminate some people's deductions, why not everybody's?
The other side gets into that other game of class warfare.
All this does is sort of concede that the Democrats are right about this, treating people differently when it comes to freedom and liberty and economic opportunity and so forth.
We should be for equal protection under the law, even in the tax code.
Anyway, back to the phones.
Who's next?
Derek in Mesa, Arizona.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Good afternoon, Mr. Lambaugh.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I have a question about something that you touched on about a month ago, and I'm not sure if, you know, I need your expertise helping clarify this.
Kathy to help out here.
Sorry.
The Obama administration, the White House, the government put out the unemployment numbers for February and March, and they were, what, 8.3%, both of them?
No, March was 8.2%.
8.2%.
Yeah.
We lost jobs, but the unemployment number went down.
It's kind of...
Oh, because they took away jobs from the...
Well...
Well, they just erased some jobs from the universe, and some people stopped looking, and it's monkeying around with the numbers.
Well, my question is, is this just monkeying around, or is this something deeper?
My question is, when people run out of unemployment benefits, they get dropped off.
They're not counted anymore.
One of the excuses that I heard about the unemployment number not going down as much as it should have was that the people that had stopped looking suddenly came back.
How are they counted?
Because they're counted again.
The way it works is this.
There's two numbers involved here.
The government calls the number that is reported every month U3, the letter U and 3.
And that consists of people who are looking for jobs, actively seeking work, but can't find any.
Period.
The U6 number counts people who are not looking for jobs and who have given up looking for jobs.
And that number is around 12, anywhere, 12 to 15%.
The U3 number that gets reported every month, that's the one that's 8.2% for March.
When people in the category of they've zoomed past their 99 weeks of unemployment and they have stopped looking, when they come back and start looking for work, they are counted again.
How do they know to count them?
I'm thinking myself, if I were in that situation and I had unemployment.
They don't.
They monitor a certain number of businesses.
They have a statistical program and the computer.
And they just assume, they poll businesses and so forth, but they assume, there's a lot of assuming that X number of people who have been out of work and not looking for work for a while start looking again.
If they've been out of work for years and say they haven't looked for work, they're no longer unemployed.
But they poll 60,000 households to get this number is basically what they do.
60,000 households and then some businesses.
And they just assume that a certain percentage, all this is a wild guess.
But the thing that you can't forget here, and I keep drilling this into people, the labor force participation rate, meaning the total number of jobs that are out there for people to fill is down by over 2 million.
There are 2 million fewer places to work since Obama was inaugurated.
Well, if you lower the universe of jobs and then divide in that the number of people looking, you're obviously going to have a smaller unemployment number, which is also happening.
Bottom line is, there is no massive new job creation going on and there isn't any economic growth to speak of.
That's all you need to know.
And it starts politico today.
Republicans to slash food stamps.
Yes, sir.
It's a news story.
Republicans to slash food stamps.
▲
Export Selection