All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:46
September 16, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
It's great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence at Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800 282-2882 and the email addressbow at EIB net.com.
Let me correct this.
I misspoke.
I got it reverse.
Janet Yellen, who will become the next fairman of the chairman of Fed theoretically is in favor of the current policy.
She's in favor of more printing of money and keeping interest rates low.
And Larry Summers, who pulled himself out of the running for it, he was the one who was going to end the printing of money, the quantitative easing, QE, whatever it is, three we're on now, and uh uh get interest rates back up.
And I had the two reversed.
I was uh I was misinformed by a self-professed market expert.
Uh anyway, my bad.
I got them reversed.
And it's it's why the market's doing well today, and it is because the the priming of the stock market pump is scheduled to continue unabated if um if this Yellen woman ends up being Janet Yellen becomes the chairman of the Fed.
Now to give you some stats on all this quantitative easing.
Uh it's it's basically $85 billion a month.
I think it's billion.
Might be a million.
But what it is, they're not really printing the money, they just digitize, change the figures in the ledger.
And they're just adding money to certain accounts where the where they know the money is going to be spent on buying stock, essentially, uh investing in the in the markets.
Forty percent, and this is from the Financial Times.
Forty percent of quantitative easing benefit has gone to the top five percent of uh well, income earners, five percent of the at the top of the wealth chart, including bankers.
That's who have benefited.
And the reason for this, once again, is style points.
The regime knows that every day, day-to-day economic activity is moribund.
I mean, it it's static.
Squalid.
There isn't anything great happening on Main Street.
There is no rising wages for people.
There is no massive job creation.
In the economy at large, there isn't anything happening on the growth side.
But the regime wants it to appear that there is, so the stock market has been the beneficiary of almost half of this quantitative easing.
And it's been used to elevate activity in the stock market, and to increase the daily Dow Jones Industrial Average, which then makes it appear that everything's hunky-dory in the economy.
And it is kind of strange because the Democrats heretofore, prior to all this, have always been the one saying what happens in the stock market's not the real world.
That's just the rich.
That's just the wealthy.
Stock market does not mean main street.
Now they've done a 180, because everything is image.
Everything is style points.
If you have an economy that's squalid and just basically going along at a at an unremarkable pace, you have to make it look like there is a burgeoning growing economy, and that's what QE, whatever, run number three, really has uh has been all about.
So the chairman of the Federal Reserve, that position is highly, highly crucial.
And Larry Summers, who took himself out of the running, wanted to end all of this because it isn't real.
I forget the the the exact number adding all the quantitative easing up, QE1, QE2, QE3 since 2008, since the financial crisis.
The amount of money that they basically created out of thin air, just printed or digitized and added to financial ledgers, is over a trillion dollars.
That has no basis in reality.
There's there's been nothing that has happened that would have produced it.
There hasn't been any economic activity undergirding it.
There's no reason for it to have happened.
But the Fed can do this.
They can print it, they can add it wherever they want.
They can add it to the money supply, they can give it to uh put it in accounts that are be uh end up being active in the stock market.
And the theory has been, guess what?
That that will trickle down.
But I'm not kidding.
The the theory has been that it would it would, it would, it would trickle down.
And and the uh, which of course I've always been, I've been told the Democrats were opposed to trickle down.
They didn't believe it when, of course, Ronaldus Magnus instituted it.
But this doesn't have a chance to trickle down.
What the Democrats are doing here, what the Fed is doing, what Obama's doing is what they always accused Reagan of doing, but this is nothing like what Reagan did.
The the trickle down that they accused Reagan of engaging in it, they said it didn't happen simply was tax cuts.
People in the in the private sector, all over the private sector, ended up with more money in their back pockets, not just five percent of the population.
Five percent of the population is getting the economic growth in this country, five percent of it.
And it's a closed universe in which these people operate.
It's not small businesses getting money and using it to invest and grow and hire people.
That is not happening.
In fact, what's happening in the real world, as you well know, is that full-time workers are being converted to part-time workers so that they can afford to stay in business because of Obamacare.
Well, that's not a concern for the people getting the QEI money.
One and a half trillion is the grand total of essentially printed money.
In fact, it's worse than that.
Since the financial crisis, I was reading something over the weekend about the uh financial crisis and uh a five-year look back at it, and the overall amount of priming the federal government, that the Federal Reserve did, uh, along with other central banks all over the world, the amount of money that they put in to the global economy, what was it I heard?
$18 trillion.
And the economies, the uh that's just the U.S. number, that's what it is.
$18 trillion all told for one trillion dollars worth of growth.
So, in order to get one trillion dollars of economic expansion in the past five years, the Fed has spent $18 trillion.
It's been classic Keynesian economics, just you know, people like Paul Krugman running around and saying we haven't spent nearly enough.
We've spent more than anybody knows.
It just hasn't all come from the federal government and being distributed like Obama wanted everybody to believe it was going to be.
We basically have bailed out financial institutions.
We've bailed out automobile companies.
We've bailed out unions.
We have bailed out $18 trillion worth.
And remember, this was done to prevent a global economic disaster.
Remember, we had to do this in 24 hours, or the world economy was going to collapse.
You know, there was a TV show that aired, I think Thursday or Friday night, and it was on the Discovery Channel, and I made a mistake of only T voting the first two hours.
It was called the President's Gatekeepers, and it's about The various chiefs of staff.
And I got I got hot under the collar watching this.
You should have the the way that this show portrayed the Clinton chiefs of staff and the Jimmy Carter Chiefs of Staff, and even the Obama chiefs of staff, great, the Reagan chiefs of staff all had to control a basic idiot.
The Reagan Chiefs of Staff were all sit there talking about what a mistake Reagan was going to make here, what a mistake Reagan was going to make there, and how they had to go in and speak truth to power.
And they had to go in and tell Reagan the truth.
And all these other nimbwits, these these absolute disasters of a president.
Their chiefs of staff are out there singing their praises, talking about great they were, but the segment that we got to in this show on chiefs of staff and the economy in 2008, the financial collapse is where I'm getting some of these numbers of $18 trillion, and how what a valiant effort it was.
There was Hank Paulson, who was a Treasury secretary at the time.
I don't know if you people might have heard about this or T voted.
And I didn't see the last two hours, but the first two were enough.
Oh, the heroic yeoman effort that everybody put together in the end of 2008 to save the world economy.
He even had the Bush Chiefs of Staff.
And in that instance, they had to make the point, yes, we had to convince the president to go against every principle he had in order to save the world economy.
And the sum total of this thing, and it was really subtle, folks.
The Discovery Channel, very subtle.
But if you watch this, what you came away with was that Republican presidents are blithering idiots saved by inside the beltway insiders acting as chiefs of staff who protected them and us from their natural instincts, Reagan and Bush.
Bush 41 kind of got a pass because he had the good sense to lose to Clinton in 41.
So he didn't get ripped.
But Reagan won twice, and Bush won twice, so they had to get shredded, and they did.
On the other hand, the Democrat chiefs of staff and the Democrat presidents, it's all very subtle.
Why Panacea, why best and brightest minds.
Even LBJ, who was accurately reported as being an absolute disaster as a president when it came to the Vietnam War.
Nevertheless, he came out shining through for his great society programs, and all these chiefs of staff talking about how great and wonderful he was.
And it was it was uh every time, every time a mistruth or something very misleading happened on TV, I would pause it and I'd practically start screaming and okay, look at look, you know what?
Why don't you just why don't you just leave?
I want to watch the rest of this.
Why don't you just because I know, I know she got so irritated because I was stopping it every 10 seconds.
But it was really subtle, and I rem I uh I remember how this show dealt with the financial crisis of 2008, and it was all just the best and the brightest and the smartest, and we were all saved.
Well, the bottom line was, folks, that $18 trillion was create created out of thin air.
18 trillion.
I mean, this doesn't even get lopped onto the national debt because this is not money authorized by the federal budget by U.S. Congress.
This is just Federal Reserve just decided to print money whenever they wanted and send it wherever they want.
All to ostensibly save the world economy.
And all it did was bail out the best and the brightest from the mistakes that they had made.
They had the power and the ability to insulate themselves, and they let Lehman brothers go as sort of like a sacrificial lamb.
And because nobody liked the guy that ran the place, Dick Fold.
They didn't like the guy.
Even today, if you read stories about the guy that ran Lehman Rhodes, he's a big brute.
He was mean.
People didn't like him.
So they let Lehman Brothers go.
So they made a movie about it called Margin Call that I've mentioned to you on this program.
At any rate, we've got three sound bites of the president from this uh economic thing today, and I want you to hear it.
We'll come back and continue after this.
Do not go away.
And we're back.
$18 trillion.
The G7 Nations borrowed $18 trillion since the financial crisis and have only one trillion in economic growth to show for it.
That's it.
That's what it's bought us.
$18 trillion borrowed, and a lot of it's going to be forgiven, not have to be paid back.
That ends up being, by the way, if you want to know what happens to that money, say hello to tax increases down the line.
That money's got to be paid for somewhere, somehow, someday by somebody.
So all of this so-called financial, this monetary expansion that is not rooted in any substantive economic growth, is going to have to be paid for, or we default, or something, and it's going to be paid for with tax increases.
Here's Obama.
Let's go to the audio sound bites in Washington at the White House, speaking about the five-year anniversary of the financial crisis.
By the time I took office, the economy was shrinking by an annual rate of more than 8%.
Our businesses were shedding 800,000 jobs each month.
It was a perfect storm that would rob millions of Americans of jobs and homes and savings that they had worked a lifetime to build.
So this is the setup.
See, this is how it all happens.
They set the table for how bad it was, so bad that nothing was going to work very soon.
Worse than we even knew.
Now, I don't know about the economy shrinking by an annual rate of more than 8%.
That folks, we wouldn't be talking recession if that were happening.
If that had been happening, I mean that there's no way.
Annual rate of more than 8% that that that we'd have had soup kitchen soup lines.
We that that there's just no way.
I mean, we're celebrating economic growth of one and a half percent a year now.
They're out there celebrating it.
There's no way.
800,000 every month, no.
Try six to seven hundred thousand, and you know when it began?
Those numbers began in November of 2008, after the confluence of the financial crisis bailout and Obama's election.
And it was 700,000 jobs a month, people were being let go.
This financial crisis, this forget remember what that was.
That was the subprime mortgage crisis.
Finally come home to roost.
The idea of giving people mortgages who couldn't pay it back and weren't paying it back, not being foreclosed on, keeping their homes, the mortgages were sold and sold and sold to unsuspecting buyers who had no idea they were worthless until there was nobody left to buy them.
And then that's when the collapse happened.
All these created products to convince people they were buying something with value when it wasn't of any value, and finally they ran out of saps to sell it to.
Hello, financial crisis.
But peoples didn't start losing their homes and their savings and all that until this guy took office.
robustly.
That's the thing that continues to amaze all of us is how any accountability for that has been escaped although it's now been explained the Limbaugh theorem.
Here is the next byte This is where Obama says he's fixed all that.
Over the last three and a half years, our businesses have added seven and a half million new jobs.
The unemployment rate has come down, our housing market is healing, our financial system is safer.
Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years, and just two weeks from now, millions of Americans who've been locked out of buying health insurance just because they had a pre-existing condition, just because they've been sick or they couldn't afford it, they're finally going to have a chance to buy quality, affordable health care on the private marketplace.
What all this means is we've cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis, and we've begun to lay a new foundation for economic growth and prosperity.
See how easy this is.
You just go out and say it.
They're just making this stuff up.
People are losing their jobs today because of Obamacare.
The high-risk pools, that's the pre-existing condition opportunity.
They're called high-risk pools that people sign up for.
Nobody signed up for them.
Everybody in the regime is still stunned and amazed that people haven't signed up for the high-risk pools.
That's what pre-existing condition insurance is being called in the vernacular of Obamacare.
But so now, folks, see if if it's we're starting to rebound now, every financial system is safer and people are getting jobs and employment rates coming down.
You know what a myth that is, but he's not saying it.
So now if you're not part of this, if you're left out of this, you're thinking, well, everybody else is doing okay, that's cool.
My time is coming.
It's only a matter of time for me now.
And if my time isn't coming, I got all kinds of government help.
Okay, so it started out really bad when Obama took office.
800,000 jobs a month are being lost, the economy was shrinking by 8%, homes are being lost, jobs are being lost, savings are being lost, but now it's fixed.
And the only problem we have left is the Republican Congress.
The top one percent of Americans took home 20% of the nation's income last year, while the average worker isn't seeing a raise at all.
In fact, that understates the problem.
Most of the gains have gone to the top one-tenth of one percent.
So, in many ways, the trends that have taken hold over the past few decades of a winner-take all economy where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground.
That's what we should be focused on.
That's what I'm focused on.
All right.
Now, this is really for me, this is really troubling.
The level of deceit here.
and what he is signaling that is our future.
The top 1% of Americans took home 20% of the nation's income last year.
And they've been doing it.
By the way, he's been president.
We're coming up on five years now.
And his policies, all of these five years have been designed to reduce this gap.
All this talk that he's engaged in about growing the middle class.
Of course, none of it's happened.
And none of it was going to happen because of his policies, because it can't happen.
What has happened is that his rich donors on Wall Street in Hollywood, they are getting the QE3 money.
That's why the top 1% is getting wealthier.
There are, There are six counties where the median income family income is over 100 grand a year.
The median income throughout the country is 51,000 median family income.
There are six counties where the median family income is twice that.
And four of those counties are suburban Washington, one's in New Mexico, one's in New Jersey.
This income gap between the rich and poor is widening.
If the Federal Reserve is printing $85 billion a month and it's going to buy stocks, who's getting the money?
Right, this is after a bunch of income tax increases, too.
I mean, Barack Obama is seeing to it that the rich are the ones getting rich.
his donors, his buddies, and he's going to be one of them when he leaves office.
This is all about making more and more people more and more independent on Washington every day.
That's what amnesty's about.
That's what his policies are all about.
But this the top 1% took home 20% of the nation's income last year.
Average worker isn't seeing a raise at all.
Way, you've been working on that for five years.
How come what you're doing isn't working?
Nobody's going to ask him that.
So when he says, We're going to do better and better.
The rich are doing better and better, and everybody else just treads water, loses ground, that's where we should be focused on.
So what he's going to do, he's going to come back and demand even more taxes on the rich, not the wealthy.
The rich small business owners is a big difference.
The people getting this QE3, QE4, whatever it is, the money being printed.
That's not who we're talking about with rich.
We're not talking about Gates and Warren Buffett and these people getting a tax increase.
People at 250,000 a year getting a tax increase.
That's who the rich are in Obamaville.
And the income disparity is going to be this lack of fairness is going to be the impetus behind higher and higher taxes on the rich.
That's what this is all setting up.
Because the rest, the rest of the economy's working now.
We got it fixed.
Everything's good now.
Health care's cheaper and uh jobs are being created and economies growing and uh financial uh markets are safe now.
The only problem is those damn rich people are too rich, and the Republicans in Congress that that uh that represent them.
So that's all we got to do.
And when we do that, then we've fixed everything fundamentally wrong with this country.
NBC Wall Street Journal poll reveals that Americans are unconvinced that Obamacare will improve the country's health care system.
And this is check this number.
Only 12% say that the law will have a positive effect on their family, and even the uninsured are skeptical that Obamacare will do them any good.
Twenty-three percent of all respondents say the law will benefit the health care system.
Twelve percent believe it'll have a positive impact on them.
So while Obama's up there celebrating his great economic recovery policies, in the real world, only 12% of the people of this country think Obamacare is gonna do them any good.
We already know this.
We we know exactly what Obamacare is going to do to people.
And they can engage, they can engage the regime can engage in all the PR and all the presidential speeches they want.
It isn't going to change what people really think.
The remaining mystery is where is the Republican Party on this.
By simple math, you could conclude here that let's just say to round it up, 75% of the American people oppose Obamacare.
Why doesn't the Republican Party in Washington want to try to connect with those people and establish a relationship, a political relationship with them as a party that represents their interests and their desires?
Why does that not happen?
And we may have a partial answer when we learn that Republican congressional staff don't want any changes in Obamacare because theirs is going to be subsidized.
Like all the Democrat congressional staffers, health care will be subsidized.
So, we're going to have a couple of different things.
Now let's.
Yeah, grab sound bites uh 15 and 16, because I mentioned earlier that there's an all-out effort now.
An all out assault on Ted Cruz and others like him.
There is an all out effort within the Republican Party, within the Republican establishment to deal with Ted Cruz and his attempted takeover of the Republican Party.
On the news hour on Friday night on PBS, David Brooks, the supposed conservative columnist for the New York Times warned that Ted Cruz and similar legislators rise to prominence threatens the traditional Republican Party.
Brooks insists that Ted Cruz's motives are less about legislation and policy and more about the politics of undermining the Republican establishment.
And Brooks considers himself to be a ranking member of the Republican establishment.
He says, he says, you people are being fooled by Cruz.
Cruz doesn't really care about you and legislation and policy.
He's trying to undermine the Republican establishment.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
This is uh this is Brooks on the news hour on PBS Friday night talking in Judy Woodruff.
What's going on in the House and a bit in the Senate too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruzism.
And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, does not have an idea that he's going to Congress, create coalitions, make alliances, and he's going to pass a lot of legislation.
He's going in more as a media protest person, uh, and a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode.
They're not normal members of Congress.
They're not legislators.
They want to stop things.
And so they're just being they just want to obstruct.
You believe this?
What in the hell are they supposed to do, Mr. Brooks?
This is what every one of you ought to be doing.
Why do you call yourself a Republican if all you want to do is lay down and agree with Obama and the Democrats?
Why don't you switch parties if it's so much better over there?
What in the world is he supposed to do?
He was sent there to stop this.
He was sent to Washington specifically to try to stop some of this.
And the popular assumption, Mr. Brooks, among most Republican voters is that's what the Republican Party at large is supposed to be doing right now.
And yet here's Brooks, and by the way he's speaking for a lot of the Republican establishment when he says these things.
Oh my God.
They're trying to actually oppose this.
They're just trying to obstruct.
They're just trying to stop things.
They're not normal members of Congress.
They're not legislators.
What the hell is a normal Republican, Mr. Brooks?
Bends over and agrees whatever the Democrats want, makes compromises, gets along, goes along.
What is a normal Republican?
I guess we know.
So Ted Cruz is to be taken out and destroyed because he wants to stop this.
I think the vast majority of American people want Obamacare stopped, Mr. Brooks.
Latest numbers from the NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
Only 12% of the American people think it's going to do him any good.
78%, simple math, don't want this, Mr. Brooks.
So Cruz isn't a good legislator.
He does not compromise what he believes.
He doesn't compromise his core beliefs or principles.
He isn't normal.
He's just, he's just a malcontent.
He's really trying to get rid of the Republican establishment.
That's what he's really trying to do.
Mr. Brooks, the Republican establishment needs to be undermined if this, if if you are accurately portraying the mindset of the Republican establishment, it needs to be undermined.
It needs to be stopped.
There used to be things That Republicans stood for.
Free markets, capitalism, individual liberties, limited government.
What happened to all that, Mr. Brooks?
That's what Cruz believes in.
And millions of Americans still do too.
What when did this happen?
When did it happen that the Republican establishment decided that their primary objective is to throw in with the Democrats?
Throw in with Obama.
When did that happen?
There's one more.
Soundbite here.
After Brooks said that Cruz is just in the Senate to obstruct legislation.
He then added this.
And the second thing they're doing, which is alarming a lot of Republicans, is they're running against their own party.
Ted Cruz is running against Republicans in the Senate.
The House Republican Tea Party tribes are running into the Republican establishment.
That's how they're raising money.
That's where they're spending their money on ads.
And so they're having a very obstructive role, which is going on this week, and I think it's going to make John Boehner's life even more difficult.
This is unreal.
This is unbelievable.
Except it's all too real and believable, isn't it?
I'm not sure that I heard what I just heard, even though I intellectually know that this is exactly the thinking of the Republican establishment now.
worst thing is they're running against their own party.
Well we're running against the Washington establishment, Mr. Brooks, which sadly knows no party differences anymore.
The Washington establishment is all Republicans and Democrats.
Doesn't matter.
They just call themselves different things, but the Washington establishment apparently is all in the same game.
There's no difference between you, Mr. Brooks, and a Democrat.
What's the point?
Spending your money on ads and a very obstructive role going on this week.
I think it's going to make John Boehner's life even more difficult.
What could possibly be difficult about agreeing with Obama?
How hard is that?
Obama says he wants this, you give it to him.
The establishment triumphs.
Is that how the game's played now?
Unbl I No, I did warn you.
I I I have tried over the years to remind people that the Republican Party has its own problems with conservatism, not just the Democrats.
And it's because conservatism is opposed to a major, big, dominant Washington establishment.
Anyway, back after this, folks.
Okay, that's it, folks.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence.
In the can, but we've got another big exciting hour to go.
Time magazine.
I guess I'll have to show you this on the Ditto Can.
There had they had two different covers this week.
One for America and one for the rest of the world.
And it's very eye opening.
It's very self explanatory.
So we'll do that.
Whatever else pops up when we get back.
▲
Export Selection