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.
No, well, it's 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, and welcome back.
Rush Linboy here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Uh telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
So Obama's out in the in a uh 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 Sylindra.
You have all these uh 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 Volt 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 speculation, they're not breaking any laws.
The Democrats have been looking for crimes in big oil and its related areas for 30 years.
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 gonna really crack down on these people.
And today he promised he's gonna really crack down on them again.
And uh Jackie Kalmus of the New York Times is all a 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 dollars, 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 best we can come up with now, the Obama has spent over a hundred billion taxpayer dollars speculating in green energy.
And what do we got for it?
What penalties should Cylindra 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 eleven 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 Enron traders manipulate 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 their 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, uh, one of the ways that Obama goes after big oil is to talk about how much their executives get paid.
What I see the other day, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil was 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.
Uh Tom Cruise I saw the other day gets $25 million a movie.
Now that 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 lists.
I 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 uh usual comparison is between big oil and teachers, uh big oil athletes and so forth.
Um these athletes think 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 the Hollywood reporter.
But what has CBS done for the country lately?
Expanded face of 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 Moonvis made a grand total of $70 million because the people involved think he's worth it.
Same thing with Rex Tillerson at ExxonMobil.
Uh 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.
That's what the market does.
But just compare it to all of these, you know, 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?
Hasn't happened.
So-called infrastructure investments, schools, investments.
Uh 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 uh 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 game.
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 the 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.
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 Mars said she never got her butt out of the house at seven o'clock in the morning.
She doesn't qualify.
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 hasn'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 health care 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?
No, 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.
So at the same time, 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.
And we just play these sound bites of uh Obama in the Rose Garden, condemning big oil, speculators, uh, 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 uh the anchorette, Kira Phillips, talking with the chief business correspondent Allie Velshi about the president's speech, and they couldn't figure out what he was talking about.
Kira Phillips said, how immediate could the uh impact be in 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 uh administration is I forget which term it was, but he uh 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 control 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 gonna 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 Ally Velshe.
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 in the teleprompter.
It's what somebody else wrote for him to say.
it's 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, um, I uh used to work for General Motors at the Tech Center in Warren, Michigan, and uh we used to have these yearly all peoples meeting and a big auditorium, engineers, designers and such would be there.
They go over the uh, you know, the year progress, and afterwards they would open up questions on the floor.
And uh a young gal, probably right out of college, uh, got the microphone and asked uh Bob Lutz, who was one of the uh you know, officers taking uh questions uh what she if he was concerned about global warming.
It was about ten years ago.
And uh his his uh take on it was well whatever cars put in to the atmosphere in terms of uh carbon dioxide is efficient compared to what the Earth puts in there from scientific study, and you know, he said, don't worry about it.
You know, the cars are much cleaner now than they've ever been, they get better gas mileage.
And he said that uh, and don't worry about the fact that we don't have gasoline because technology is such now that seems like we have more uh gasoline the more we use, the more we discover.
And uh so he you know basically allayed this uh this lady's fears about it.
So what what what are you what are you saying here that ten years ago Lutz was uh was uh didn't believe in this global warming stuff?
No, he did not.
Not at all.
And everybody was uh 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 you know uh you know so and this was his take, you know, don't worry about it.
It's ten years ago.
Well, I know.
This is uh 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, and Lutz showed me some things they were working on, and they had a mock-up, and I and I I'd 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 uh one of the areas they showed me.
And I remembered the the the fact that it it made news when he announced that uh this was something on their drawing board they were looking at, and I asked him, and it was a beautiful car, by the way.
Big think uh Mercedes S club, think bigger than that, think myBach.
Think think rolls.
I mean, it w it was gonna be Cadillac's entry into that market.
Twelve cylinders, six hundred horsepower, five hundred, it's gonna be big.
And he said, I can't make it.
Um emission standards coming down the line, cafe and all that uh car would never qualify within our fleet standards is just I can't build it.
Can't build it.
Now, uh Charlie here talking about Lutz being right on the money when it came to man-made global warming, it was a crock and uh and this kind of thing.
Lutz, by the way, the remark in 2008, Bob made that crack during a private launch 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 what he says that the reason he's pushing the vault is nothing to do with really global warming.
He he's he's he's motivated by the desire to replace imported oil.
Then the CO2 argument.
So but uh uh I'm just remembering now when I met Lutz at the cigar dinner, thought I was talking to somebody simpatico.
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 is was and is popular at General Motors.
He'd loved to have a perfect guy to have at a dinner party.
The 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, I'm not getting his emails, but my Bluetooth in the car's being hacked.
Yeah, the apple.
Yeah.
Bob Lutz was a marine fighter pilot.
Um 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 problem earlier about your car and your blue shoes.
And you guys, there's one piece I think that you you're not looking at correctly.
Um 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 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, 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 you didn't understand the uh my explanation of my setup.
There is no circle, and I didn't leave the Wi-Fi.
I'm on 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 two if by tea.
For those of you new to the program, two if by tea.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 twoifyt.com.
Features me.
It's my tea.
Features me in the label as Rush Revere.
And last week, we told you that uh 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 uh coming up on Memorial Day, 4th 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, to 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 and 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 two if by tea.
One if by land, two if by sea, this is two if by tea.
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 gonna 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, uh 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 sweepstakes 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 two if by T memorabilia and a brand new Apple iPod.
Now, to enter, all you do is visit two if by tea.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.
$1999 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 special price for this special promotion, 1999 a case.
So you have from right now through April 18th, Paul Revere Day at 1159 p.m. Pacific to be one of our next grand prize winners at 2ifbyT.com.
All the official rules are posted on the site, as well as uh 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.
Two if by tea.com.
All right.
Uh, 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 to if by T 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 Cialis.
I have a Sialis commercial, is people in the bathtub.
None of that on a two if by tea trip.
If you want it, you can bring it, but we don't give that away or contraceptions.
That's all up to you.
Daniel Henniger 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 I'm 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 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 or special one of the one of the tax ideas was to eliminate, and I get this, eliminate the mortgage deductibility on second homes.
Now that's populism.
That we're we're we're talking uh an amount of money that's no different than the Buffett rule.
It's it's it's just it's a it's a shame.
His capital gains idea is uh 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 uh seems fair or what have you.
I just these are these are not the things that a Republican, much less a conservative nominee needs to be talking about or saying.
This is this is Rockefeller Republicanism.
Uh This is it's identity politics.
It's the kind of stuff that the uh the left talks about.
Nicole Jalinas at the Corner National Review.
If any of you are struggling or have struggled with figuring your capital gains and 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 adjusted gross 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 with 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 presumptive nominee.
Focusing on the rich, the wealthy.
This is uh 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 that Mitt Romney's a little uh embarrassed of his wealth and and then and wants to, I don't know, make excuses for it.
Which is non-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 uh 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 planting 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 with 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, uh, and and so they they inoculate themselves from any criticism.
And they are they're said to relate to the little people and so forth.
Same questions asked of conservatives.
Oh, I gotta put on defensive immediately.
Here's Romney's answer, by the way.
We don't divide America based upon success and wealth and uh 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 envy?
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, uh see, the the problem we don't divide America based upon success and wealth and other 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.
Could be asked about John Kerry.
Gotta take a break.
Sit tight, much more straight ahead here on the EIB network after this.
No, it's no look, it what I don't understand from 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 gonna have a different set of rules for the rich, then you're getting you you you're you're pandering.
It's populism.
You you you you're you're emulating the class warfare of Obama of the Democrats.
And I don't 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 we we should be for equal protection under the law, even in the tax code.
Anyway, back to the phones.
Who's next?
Uh 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 uh question about something that you were you touched on about a month ago, and uh, I'm not sure if you know I I need your expertise helping uh clarify this to help out here.
Sorry.
The uh the Obama administration, the White House, the government put out the uh unemployment numbers for February and March, and they were what, eight point three percent, both of them?
No, March was eight point two percent.
Eight point two percent.
Yeah.
We we we lost jobs, but the unemployment number went down.
Uh it's it's kind of because they took away jobs from the US.
Well, they did yeah, there's uh they just erased some jobs from the universe and some people stopped looking, and it's uh yeah, monkeying around with the numbers.
Well, my question is, is this my is this just monkeying around or is it something deeper?
My question is uh when people run out of unemployment benefits, they get they get dropped off, they're not counted anymore.
Uh one of the excuses that I heard about the unemployment number not going down as much as it should have was that the uh 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 U three, the letter U and three, 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 percent.
The U3 number that that gets reported every month, that's the one that's 8.2% for March.
Okay.
When people in the category of they're they've 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 does that how do they know to count them?
I'm thinking myself, if I were in that situation and I had unemployment.
They don't.
It's a st that they monitor a certain number of uh businesses.
They have a statistical program in the computer, and they just assume they they they poll business 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.
Um 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, that's 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 two million.
There are two million fewer places to work since Obama was inaugurated.
Well, if you 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.
Speak of.
That's all you need to know.
And it starts politico today.
Republicans to slash food stamps.
Yes, sir, Rebub, it's a news story.
Republicans to slash food stamps.
▲
Export Selection