All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
February 23, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm here, folks.
Don't sweat it.
I'm here.
I just had to get some last minute stuff done before turning on the golden EIB microphone getting started with today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
Great to have you with us.
As always, Rushland Bought 800 28282 in the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So did you follow through last night, Mr. Snerdley, and uh and not watch the Oscars.
Well, I I watched them.
And I have never been more bored.
And I'm not trying to say this as a put down.
I I don't know why I stuck with it.
There was nothing else on.
And I I was physically worn out.
I uh I had a grueling.
I mean brutal.
I mean excruciating weekend.
By the time Sunday night came around, I was just dog tired.
Cat tired.
Whatever.
So I mean, I didn't even have the energy to have my finger on the remote to change channels.
So I sat there and watched it.
I think the reason I stuck with it is I I didn't think American Sniper was going to win anything.
I did not buy all the hype.
I didn't.
They won one award for uh uh best costume making in a short story uh having to do with uh promotional schemes for a movie or some such category as that.
I I don't know what it was.
And I wanted to see what did win, and I wanted to see if there was an infusion of politics.
Donald Trump had a great take.
Grab soundbite number eight.
This is the Trumpster this morning on Fox and Friends.
It was a great night for Mexico, as usual.
You know, this country.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
But it was a great night and very unexpected, a great night for Mexico.
This guy kept getting up and up and up.
I said, you know, what what's he doing?
He's walking away with all the gold.
Was it that good?
I don't hear that, but it was certainly uh a big night for that.
A big night for Mexico.
Even Sean Penn, when giving the award to the director for the Oscar, you know, the best picture said, Who gave this son of a gun his green card?
Only he didn't say son of a gun.
He said son of a BIH.
Now suppose they're good friends and they're good buddies, and they tell insulting jokes to each other all the time.
We're Narudy Giuliani isn't around to hear it.
And there was no offense taken or uh or any of that.
The other, and there were disguised political moments throughout the night.
I thought Rudy would get hit a couple times last night, but he didn't.
And we have more on that as the program unfolds before your very eyes.
Because frankly, folks, what is happening out there in conservative media?
Oh my gosh, am I so happy to see finally I'm I don't have to say this very carefully.
It let me just say this.
It is fantastic to finally see some people realizing what's going on when the left keeps go, the media keeps going to our candidates.
And what do you think about what Rudy said about Obama?
In the first place, Scott Walker is showing everybody how to answer that question and how to answer all those questions.
And another thing about this, we're also finally getting people turning it around on them.
Well, hey, why don't you go ask some Democrats what they think of Bill Clinton flying all over the world with a pedophile?
Why don't you guys go ask the Democrats what it's like to have to stand up and defend Joe Biden every day?
It's always a one-way street.
So Obama goes out and says some crazy things, apologizes for the country, or Rudy will come out and say, I don't think he loves the country.
Not the way we do.
I just don't and then so the press will go to other Republicans and ask them two things to condemn Rudy and to validate Obama.
And it's not our job to validate Obama, and it's not our job to comment on everything any other Republican says because the media never asks Democrats to do that.
Joe Biden is nuzzling women, he's insulting Indians, he's insulting Pakistanis, he insults somebody every time he opens his mouth, and not once does anybody in the media go to any Democrat and say, Well, what do you have to say about what Joe Biden says?
The reaction is ah, that's just old Joe.
And it gets passed off and forgotten, as though it isn't any big deal.
But you have a Todd Aiken, for example, say what he said.
Every Republican has to comment.
Every Republican has to condemn it.
Every Republican by the same token, whenever Obama is attacked by any other Republican, other Republicans have to condemn the attack and then have to validate that Obama's not what the Republicans said.
But it never works the other way.
And this is something that has bugged me.
Those of you who have listed this program from the beginning know this has bugged me from the beginning of all this.
And finally, there's some people now pointing out the right way to do this.
Don't answer the question and turn it back on them.
For example, Scott Walker.
I don't know that this, this is an example.
He had his own answer to it.
He was asked about Obama's Christianity.
He said, I don't know.
I don't know whether Obama's a Christian.
What are you asking me?
Go ask him.
Doesn't matter to me whether Obama's a Christian.
That's not what I'm doing here.
I don't know.
I don't know the man.
You go ask him if you care about he's a Christian or not.
That's the way to handle it.
Um somebody, somebody will ask a Republican, well, what do you think about Rudy?
Rudy insulting Obama.
Rudy's saying that Obama doesn't love America.
The response is, you know, I don't remember the last time you guys went around and started asking Hillary if she's very worried about Obama flying all or about her husband flying all over the world with a pedophile and showing up at the pedophile's homes in New York and Florida.
When are you going to ask Bill Clinton what it's like?
When are you going to ask people in the Democrat Party to defend Bill Clinton for doing this kind of stuff?
And any other, that's starting to happen now.
And when it does, it changes the story, the narrative.
And it turns it around on him.
And now that the media is not is not happy with this.
This is this is part of their monopoly that didn't change for a while.
They were always able to get away with this.
Any Republican, like me, they'll say something about somebody that's controversial, and they'll go to all these Republicans.
What do you think about Limbaugh said?
And for the most part, they've played it right and not conduct it.
But some will either defend me or condemn me, and that's what the media wants.
And the right answer is, I don't speak for Rush Limbaugh.
I don't have that what Rush Limbaugh thinks what Rusland Ball thing, you're not going to condemn what Rush Limbaugh says.
When are you going to condemn?
You've got to be turned back on him.
When are you going to condemn what Joe Biden keeps saying about 7-Eleven and Indian people?
Or take your pick.
When are you going to condemn Barack Obama for his constant attack on Benjamin Netanyahu and Christians?
When are you going to – it's got to be turned back around on them, and it finally is starting to be.
And so I think this is great, and I hope this is something that continues, folks, because it is long overdue.
The media and the Democrat Party have gotten – And I'll tell you what it comes down to.
The reason why the Republicans have always done it is because of the uh mistaken impression that they can set themselves apart from other Republicans if they get media acceptance.
I give you the one of the most glaring examples of this.
And he had Jack Kemp on in the VEP, right?
And there was a debate.
A debate between the late Jack Kemp and uh and the then vice president Al Gore.
And Al Gore during debate, during the debate, praised Kemp for not being like all of his Republican buddies.
Al Gore went out of the way to say, Jack, I know you are not a racist.
Jack, I know you are not a bigot.
And Kemp thanked the vice president.
Rather than refute the allegation and the premise, he thanked him.
By the same token.
Let's say you have Todd Aiken saying whatever he said about rape, and so here goes the media running around finding every Republican they can.
And the Republicans just can't wait to condemn Aiken because they think that's how they establish themselves as reasonable when the whole thing is nothing more than the latest media trick, which is to get Republicans to condemn each other and to validate Democrats.
And that's part and parcel of what's happening here with this Rudy thing is two-pronged.
They want Republicans to distance themselves from Rudy.
They want Republicans to marginalize Rudy, and then they want Republicans to disagree with Rudy, which would then validate Obama.
That's and it's not our job to validate Obama.
So Scott Walker and a couple of others are showing the right way to do this now.
And I, for one, couldn't be happier.
Now, the other big political item of the night, and I thought this was I kind of perked up at it because it's a little bit out of place.
I thought, been there done that.
And I said, What was with this?
There's an actress out there, and her name is Patricia R. Kett.
Did I give you, yeah, it's number six.
And she won the what was it, the best supporting actress, female supporting actress, for her role in the movie Boyhood.
Okay, now I have seen Patricia Arquette in Boardwalk.
And Patricia Arquette, she's got a great voice.
You know, I, El Rushbow, a student of voices.
And hers is a really unique voice.
I mean, everybody's voice is unique, but she knows how to use it.
She uses it as a weapon as an ammunition as a tool.
And she's starring in an upcoming TV series called CSI Cyber.
You know, they've spun off another one of the CSI shows, and this one is about cyber and therefore computer fraud and this kind of thing.
And they the pilot for this was an actual episode of CI CSI crime scene investigation or whatever, the thing that's set in Las Vegas.
And I liked it.
I like the show, CSI Cybers.
That debuts March 4th.
And then I saw this thing last night.
Ah, darn it, why did she have to do this?
Now I don't know that I want to watch CSI Cyber.
And I was looking forward to watching CSI Cyber.
Well, she went up there and she started just shouting about women's rights.
She just started shouting about equal rights, and they made it look like women the most descriptive.
Now in Hollywood, it's true.
She had a point about Hollywood.
Women are underpaid in Hollywood compared to men.
And she had a point on Hillary's.
You know, Hillary when she was a senator.
The women on Hillary's staff did indeed make 72 cents for every dollar that a man made.
So here's here's the relevant soundbite from Patricia Arquette.
It goes by in 20 seconds.
She's yelling and screaming out there.
And if you didn't see this, this whole sound bite has been hijacked by Meryl Streep.
Because what happened, did you see it, Don?
Did you watch it?
See, saw she know what I'm talking about.
You see it, Brian?
Yeah, you've got a kid, no way.
So she says what she says, yells and screams, uh, not quite Hillary, uh, screeching, but she got close.
And immediately after she read it, she had it all typed out and written, she put her glasses on and read the thing, and was nervous and out of breath, as she was content.
But when she got to the payoff, the camera cut to Meryl Streep, who was always in the front row.
I you know what I was I was shocked when I found out Meryl Streep's only won three Oscars.
I thought she'd won 73.
I thought Miss uh Meryl Streep got an Oscar every year, sometimes five.
I mean, I was shocked when she only got three.
Three, she's up there every year, it seems like.
Anyway, as soon as Patricia R. Kett delivered the money line, Meryl Streep just popped up like she was a jack-in-the-box restaurant, started applauding and high-fiving and fist bumping, and as far as the low information voters today are concerned, it's Meryl Streep who said it.
Patricia R. Kett's comments have been totally hijacked, if you saw it by Meryl Streep.
Here's the sound bite.
To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights.
It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America.
Bam!
Cut to Meryl Streep.
She is out of her chair.
Jennifer Lopez is right next to her going nuts, but Streep took over the screen at that point.
And just starts fist bumping and high-fiving and shouting, and everybody forgot about Patricia Arkett.
By the way, that voice, that's that's not her professional voice.
I mean, she was I mean, I complimented her voice.
It's unique.
That she was just shouting, and you heard her out of breath.
I'm out of breath listening to that.
Man.
What were you gonna say, Snerdley?
What was it?
Oh, and everything in the world do with Oscar.
You remember Amy Pascal, who got canned at Sony.
Well, yeah, but but but yeah, but found out that she was making much less than her co-CEO.
And there was some other in those emails in that hack.
Um who was it?
Uh some other female actress, I can't remember who it was, was also documented that the women at least being paid by Sony are being paid much less than the men.
What Patricia Arquette was really talking about women in Hollywood and women on Hillary Clinton staff, as I found out.
The i in the rest of the culture and society, I don't think it's as big a problem as it used to be equal pay.
But it this felt like a throwback.
This is something I felt like I could have heard in the 70s.
And here it is, 2015.
Hillary Clinton portrays herself.
This is the Washington Free Beacon.
Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce.
But women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington free beacon analysis of her Senate year salary data.
During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton's office was $15,000, almost $16,000 less than the median salary for a man.
According to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate uh expenditure reports.
The analysis compiled, the annual salaries paid to staffers.
See, this is what I love.
It's always the left's up there standing up, yelling, whining, moaning, belly aching, and when you find out who it is they're mad at, it's themselves.
Sony was underpaying women.
Now here's Hillary underpaying women.
But there's Patricia Arquette.
Poor woman got her whole moment hijacked by Meryl Streep.
It was the most amazing thing.
Okay, warning, I'm gonna stick with the subject of the Oscars here for a minute, but it's not about that.
It's about economics.
It's a lesson.
It's a teachable moment.
I'm not delving into pop culture discussion of movies and stuff like that.
Patricia Arquette was in the movie Boyhood, where she played a single mom raising a kid, and that is what makes her an expert on income inequality.
Don't forget that.
Actresses who play farmer wives, for example, become experts on problems on the farm.
So Patricia Arquette, playing a single mom, raising a kid in a movie boyhood, now makes her an expert on income equality.
She said, listen this bite again.
There's something in here that I found somewhat curious.
To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights.
All right, stop the tape.
Every woman to every woman who gave birth to every Did she just diss women who've had abortions?
You don't hear this.
That's a mistake.
It's a faux pas sure she didn't intend it.
But you don't hear this kind of reference in Hollywood, particularly in the Oscars.
honoring women who've given birth.
That's kind of the opposite of what happens there.
Now, what Meryl Streep did Meryl Streep literally hijacked Patricia Arquette's moment, and she knew it.
Do not think that that was just on bridal enthusiasm.
Look, Meryl Streep's in the front row.
She knows a camera when she sees it, obviously.
She knows when the red light on the camera is on.
She knows it.
She knows the cameras.
There's got a body watch camera on Meryl Streep all day.
She knows this.
So she's I mean, she popped up at the right moment, and the director cut right to her reaction in the movie business that is called stealing focus.
It's an actual term for it.
Stealing focus.
And it's taboo.
It's considered Bush League.
Now you won't hear that said about Merrill Streep because Meryl Streep is 173 Oscars and speaks 115 languages with 1400 different accents.
Not to mention the dialects.
So you just don't attack her.
But this bit now, here's the economics lesson.
Sean Penn last night said when he presented the best movie.
It's about the movies.
It's not about the money they make.
It's not about this.
It's not the, and he might have been talking about in terms of the awards, but I'm telling you, it is about the money they make.
It's all about the what that's why they do this.
It's all about the money they make, just like any other business is.
And there's a reason women are paid less than men.
And In Hollywood.
There's a reason for it, there's a market reason for it.
It has nothing to do with discrimination, has nothing to do with sexism or anything else.
Do you know what it is?
Do you know the reason?
Do you know why women in Hollywood actresses are paid less than men?
Do you know why they make less than men?
It's not sexism.
It isn't bigotry.
It isn't the casting couch.
It's box office.
And don't get mad at me for saying it.
I'm just telling you the way it is.
Women in Hollywood don't make as much as men because they are not equal in draw.
It's it and it's folks, these are market research numbers.
This is, I mean, it's their business to know this.
They focus group this stuff, they research this stuff.
It is all about the money.
When Sean Penn goes out there and says, hey, you know what?
It's about the movies.
It's at the end of the day, it's about the movies.
It's not about how much money they make, it's not about how over budget they are.
He may be talking about in terms of the award show.
But for the people who run the business, it is all about the movie, and they're not going to overpay for people that don't, and they don't get it right every day.
They overpay all kinds of people in Hollywood.
They probably underpay people in Hollywood, but they try to get it as close as they can, and it's box office, and it's who draws and who doesn't, and it's just the way it is.
Male stars are bigger box office than female stars.
Now you might if you want to condemn American culture for that, then you have at it.
If you want to say we're racist country because movie goers would just as soon are, you know, more attracted to movies with uh male stars than they are female stars.
Have at it.
I mean, I don't you're on your own.
I'm making no comment on that.
I'm just telling you this is what Hollywood market research indicates.
And it's just the way it is.
Now, obviously, people are going to try to make it out to be sexism and racism, but after look at these are all liberals.
How in the world can this be?
I mean, the liberals are the ones that are running around raising all hell about this.
The liberals are the ones running around accusing us and everybody else of income inequality, and it's their own house that's guilty.
It's their own industry.
Look at Hillary.
Hillary paid the women on her staff.
These are these are official numbers.
It's not somebody's wild guess.
She paid the women that worked and her staff made 72% of what men made.
And yet these liberals are running around.
This is the point of all of last week when I was spent a lot of time telling you why it mattered that all of these federal agencies wanted to be in charge of what you eat and take every control of your life as possible.
They're the ones that think you're imperfect.
They're the ones that think you don't know what to do in decision making.
You're the ones that don't have the smarts to take care of yourselves.
You know the judgment, you don't spend your money right.
They're the ones that have all the answers.
They're the ones that the only ones, by the way, that can ever get us to this perfect utopia.
That's what they believe.
And yet they're and they run around, they make all these allegations, and you find out that all of this injustice is happening right inside their own homes, right inside their own businesses.
While they point fingers at us and everybody else for being imperfect, for being a racist, for being sexist for being prejudicial.
Whenever the spotlight turns inward and shines the light of truth on these people, we find out what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
And as liberals, I have a question.
Since we now know, and it's documented that male stars in Hollywood make more than female stars.
That equals what?
Why, that's income inequality.
Why, that's the unequal and unfair redistribution of resources.
I mean, there are X amount of dollars coming into Hollywood every year based on the production, based on the movies and everything that goes along with it, and men are getting a greater percentage of it than women.
Why don't the men give it back?
Why don't the men, as good liberals, why don't the male actors to show that they're good liberals and that they are all about fairness?
And that they are devoted to equality, why don't male stars say, I am not going to do this movie unless my female co-star earns as much as I do.
Even if that means I will reduce my demand.
Why don't they do that?
They're the leaders, they're the ones with all the answers, they're the big critics, they're the ones that recognize racism all over the place, these libs, they're the ones that recognize sexism all over the place.
They're the ones that are launching constant, never-ending allegations at us against us for all this stuff.
Why don't they take the lead?
Now that we know that women are underpaid in Hollywood, at least as compared to men.
Why don't these sensitive, aware, devoted to equality male actors take the lead on this?
Patricia Arquette showed the way.
Merrill Street popped up and shouted her agreement.
Male stars need to actly say to the studios and producers, I'm not gonna do this unless my female co-star earns as much as I do.
And if I have to give back 20% of what you've offered me so that my female co-star can make as much as I do in this movie, then that's what I will do.
Until they do that, shut up.
Until Hollywood fixes its own house, until Hollywood can make itself the exemplar of perfection as it's demanding from everybody else.
And Lord knows they tout themselves.
Oh, they're great storytellers, they're great influencers, they inspire, you hear them all during the award show.
The art and how much it inspires and so forth.
What I saw last night was nothing more than an endless parade of misery.
Yet again receiving awards for it, endless misery here, endless misery, triumphing over misery, being mired in misery, what have you.
Everybody's miserable.
The constant liberal state, everybody's miserable, everybody's unhappy, everybody's agitated, and here's who portrayed it the best.
Here's who inspired us to be miserable better than anybody else did tonight.
But I still think that the men have a long way to go.
If they're that much overpaid, give it back in the name of equality, in the name of sameness, and by all means in the end of uh in the in the name of fairness.
I did not believe this story when I saw it.
This next one.
It's from the UK Daily Mail.
Government panel recommends five cups of coffee a day now to ward off heart disease, liver cancer, and Parkinson's.
How long ago was it?
It wasn't very long ago that these same people were warning us of the life-threatening dangers of drinking too much coffee.
Right?
Seems like it was just yesterday.
That we were being bombarded with earth-shattering, scary news that drinking too much coffee could cause early death, maybe even Alzheimer's, certainly could lead to constipation.
It certainly was something that people were doing too much and Needed to avoid, and now all of a sudden you can't drink too much of it.
You need to be drinking more.
Minimum five cups a day.
That will ward off heart disease, not cause it.
It will ward off liver cancer, not lead to it, and it will ward off Parkinson's disease.
Now, funny about that, I thought embryonic stem cells were going to fix Parkinson's disease.
Oh, wait.
I know.
In fact, I thought somebody had already made the point that embryonic stem cells had cured Parkinson's, but we find it wasn't embryonic stem cells, it was adult.
But that doesn't fit the politically correct narrative.
So here you go.
Same people been yelling at us for decades that coffee was bad.
Coffee was unhealthy.
Coffee was evil.
Coffee was yuck.
Now telling us to drink at least five cups a day.
Is it any wonder people are panicked every day over their heads?
Any wonder people are obsessed with their health.
Because every week it's a new calamity or a new contradiction of a previous calamity.
This bunch of experts is from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which convenes every five years.
They did a detailed assessment of coffee for the first time, and they recommend drinking three to five cups a day or four hundred milligrams for pregnant women.
The report suggests limiting coffee consumption to two uh uh uh uh so it still can harm pregnant women.
Five cups a day may keep the doctor away.
Now they say later on the dietary guidelines advisory committee that'd be DGAC.
One of the uh one of the members, Tom Brenna, Cornell University is, hey, look, I don't want to get into implying that coffee cures cancer, but there is no evidence of increased risk.
If anything, it's the other way around.
Coffee is good stuff, he told Bloomberg.
Coffee is good stuff.
How many of you have been thinking how many how long have you been thinking coffee was a bad thing that you needed to avoid it and maybe you're drinking too much of it?
It's either the caffeine or something, but I'm sure many of you, millions of you running around with it in your head that coffee is a bad thing and you can't give it up, you like it too much.
And now all of a sudden, hey, not only is it okay, you may not be drinking enough of it.
What you idiots.
Just need to shut up.
Now, look, I know there are exceptions.
There's a sec exceptions to everything.
Like, like look at um, you know, Hollywood will make a chick flick now and then.
Fifty shades of gray.
Chick flick.
But what did they do?
They went out and found a relatively unknown act, relatively.
I mean, it's not Meryl Streep in there, not that it would be.
But take care of if it's a relatively unknown actress who did not command big bucks and a relatively unknown actor from Northern Ireland, Jamie Dornen.
It's all about the money, Sean.
Anyway, to the phones we go, folks, kicking off, brand new week broadcast excellence, Rush Limbaugh to Macon, Georgia.
This is Bill.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Very well, sir.
I'm glad you called.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Amy Pascal is paid what she's paid, not because she's a woman.
She's paid what she's paid because what she or whoever negotiates for her negotiated.
She is an executive.
People at that level, and in a lot of non-executive jobs, are paid the companies will not pay you what you're worth.
They're going to hire the best talent at the lowest price.
And if you undernegotiate yourself and you take what they offer you, you're going to get paid.
You're going to get paid at a lower rate.
I'm finding that out after 32 years in the military.
I'm considered an executive.
I'm I'm 49, I'm getting ready to retire next week.
And I'm learning all kinds of things.
And one of the things that uh that they're telling us in our in our transition is companies are gonna hire like I said, hot companies are gonna hire the best talent they can't the lowest price.
So if A. Pascal's paying more than female colleagues doesn't have to be a good thing.
That's as a generic rule, that's true, but there are exceptions to everything.
Um it in depending on cycles that we find ourselves in certain employees can name their price depending on the need the business has for whatever a particular employee does and whether the employee is the best and how many other options the employer or potential employee has.
But as a general rule, you're right.
Labor costs are the most the biggest item in any business's uh balance sheet and they want to pay them as little as they can get away with.
That's a standard operating procedure.
Compensation what people get paid is one of the most misunderstood elements uh of of American life I think.
Now look at what Bill just said here.
Now Amy Pascal, she just got blown out of Sony.
It was it was her account mainly, although everybody's was but her account was I mean really hacked.
Virtually every embarrassing email that she hoped never to be seen was seen.
But one of the things that was she was the co-CEO.
There was a male CEO that ran the business side.
She ran the studio and and production side and she was making considerably less than Lyndon Michael Linden was the co-CEO.
Now Bill's point is that it's not innate discrimination it is whoever her agent was or whoever negotiated for her did not get the best deal that could have been gotten obviously if another guy co-CEO got more you never know that could be true.
It could be the employee left money on the table.
It could be the employee didn't care as much, wanted the job, wanted the day to day more the money was not as important as it was to others.
It's different unless you're in a union this is the point compensation is different from person to person to person.
And it's one of the most misunderstood subjects I think in uh in in American economics and there are a lot of misunderstood things in economics I don't believe for example in on the on the surface of this and you're gonna disagree with me probably but the concept of overpaid I'm not really sure it exists.
It may be you think so an athlete say an Alex Rodriguez there's no way he's worth $25 million when you compare it to a teacher who barely makes $60,000.
You'd sit there, you're going to make a judgment on which is more important.
Well, that's a dangerous game to play.
More important to who?
Whoever's paying Alex Rodriguez $25 million is A, either stupid, or B, really thinks that's what Rodriguez is worth, or was at the time the deal was made.
And as far as the Yankees are concerned, or the Rangers, who, whatever team pays it, they have made a decision that that money is going to come back to them once, twice, maybe three times that it's going to be worth it.
Very few employers actually throw money away.
Some do as I said there are exceptions to everything and not every employer's brilliant not every manager makes every compensation decision correctly but you are worth what you can get somebody to pay you.
That's what it boils down to.
You are worth as much as you can convince somebody to pay you.
So when you start talking about somebody being overpaid at whatever dollar, well, not to whoever's paying it.
For some reason, whoever's paying it thinks he's got value there.
It's a real, to me, it's a fascinating subject.
Revolving around the employer-employee relationship.
And the fact that most employees, I got to, no, let's have a little time.
Most employees, not most, many, never even fully understand the value they really have.
Because it's largely a defensive relationship.
sometimes what mean the boss has all the power uh the employees always on defense if you get too aggressive you're gonna get canned you know these kinds of adds a defensive position, because it's not the position of power.
And I think a lot of employees totally misunderstand the power they have.
It's ingrained in us, though.
We're raised that way.
But it's uh it it doesn't have to be the case.
Anyway, I've got to take a break here, but we will continue.
Sit tight, don't go away.
What?
Oh yeah.
Of course we're.
Oh yeah, I haven't even gotten in.
Well, I just a little bit.
Yeah, we're gonna.
How could you think I wouldn't?
Whether Obama loves America or not, sure we're gonna talk about it.
We're gonna keep talking about that.
I mentioned it a little bit in the first hour, part of first hour, but yeah, that and all kinds of stuff coming up here, folks.
▲
Export Selection