Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Subtitle for NY Times Story: "Or Why We've got to Defeat Obama"

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Listen to this. The New York Times, a very sad New York Times: "As New Graduates Return to Nest, Economy Also Feels the Pain -- Like most of her friends, Hollis Romanelli graduated from college last May and promptly moved back in with her parents. As a result, she didn’t pay rent -- or a broker’s fee or renters’ insurance, for that matter. She also didn’t buy a bed, desk, couch, doormat, mop or new crockery set." How insulting to think that's what a woman would go buy?  You got a female graduate here in the era of feminazi-ism and they're worried about the fact she didn't go buy a doormat, a mop or a crockery set?  And a woman wrote this, Catherine Rampell.  How insulting.  This is a story about how these new graduates are not just harming themselves and how they're being harmed, but the whole economy is being harmed because they're not buying all this stuff for themselves because they're not earning any money.

I just find it hilarious that of all the things a female college graduate could be lamented for not being able to buy, a mop?  Why not throw an ironing board in there?  A crockery set?  How about a fondue machine?  I don't know what a crockery set is.  I really don't know.  It sounds like something you get a Williams-Sonoma.  (interruption)  I don't care.  All I know is the New York Times is unhappy that this female graduate can't go buy one.  What do I care what a crockery set is? 

"Nor did she pay the cable company to send a worker to set up her TV and Internet, or a handyman to hang a newly framed diploma. She didn’t even buy drinks and snacks for a housewarming party.  In other words, Ms. Romanelli, 22, saved a lot of money. But she deprived the economy of a lot of potential activity, too.  Every year, young adults leave the nest, couples divorce, foreigners immigrate and roommates separate, all helping drive economic growth." (laughing) So, cultural tumult, the New York Times is lamenting.  There's not enough cultural rot.  Look at what they say drives the economy: "young adults leave the nest, couples divorce, foreigners immigrate and roommates separate, all helping drive economic growth when they furnish and refurbish their new homes." Yes, growing up does help but I don't know where they think divorce comes into this. 

"Under normal circumstances, each time a household is formed it adds about $145,000 to output that year as the spending ripples through the economy, estimates Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics."   They just defined trickle down here.  They've just defined trickle down here in the New York Times, which they excoriate.  They hate trickle down, they say it doesn't exist.  They just defined it here.  "But with the poor job market and uncertain recovery --" whoa, whoa, whoa, I thought we were in an expansion?  This chick at the New York Times is in for big trouble here.  This story is a wreck because it's not following any of the templates of the Drive-By Media.  My God, lamenting that a woman can't go out and buy a crockery set or a mop, lamenting the fact that there isn't divorce, lamenting the fact that foreigners aren't immigrating, that roommates aren't separating.  Wow. 

"With the poor job market and the uncertain recovery --" that's another thing.  We're supposed to be in an expansion here.  "-- hundreds of thousands of Americans like Ms. Romanelli (and her boyfriend, who also lives with his parents) have tabled their moves. Even before the recession began, young people were leaving home later; now the bad economy has tethered them there indefinitely. Last year, just 950,000 new households were created. By comparison, about 1.3 million new households were formed in 2007, the year the recession began, according to Mr. Zandi."  It did not begin in 2007.  I mentioned this earlier.  The recession began in 2008. 

But at any rate, "Ms. Romanelli, who lives in the room where she grew up in Branford, Conn., said, 'I don’t really have much of a choice,' adding, 'I don’t have the means to move out.'  Ms. Romanelli, who works as an assistant editor at Cottages & Gardens magazines, is one of the luckier 'boomerang' children who have found jobs and at least can start saving for their own place someday. As of last month, just 74 percent of Americans ages 25 to 34 were working. It is perhaps no wonder then that 14.2 percent of young adults are living with their parents, up from 11.8 percent in 2007. Among young men, 19 percent are living with their parents.

"But even some young people who can afford to move out have decided to wait until getting on more solid footing. Prudence, not necessity, has kept them at home.  Jay Bouvier, 26, has a full-time job teaching physical education and health and coaching football and baseball at a high school in Hartford, near his parents’ house in Bristol. He could rent his own apartment -- after taxes he makes about $45,000 a year, he says -- but has decided not to. He says he will stay with his parents until he has saved enough to buy his own house.  'I have it pretty good at home, since it’s so close to my work, and financially I just feel like it’s smarter for the long run to buy,' he said. He says that living with his parents enables him to set aside about half of each paycheck. 'It’s like I pay rent, but to myself.'

"By not paying rent, of course, he has deprived a local landlord and a host of other local companies of some income, as well as whatever businesses those purveyors might have patronized further down the line. It’s a phenomenon that John Maynard Keynes referred to as the 'paradox of thrift': Saving is good for the individual, but en masse can hurt the economy by reducing demand." These people continue to define trickle down and don't know it.  So now they're lamenting that there's no trickling taking place in the economy because these selfish brats are staying at home and they're not buying their own mops, and they're not buying their own crockery sets and they're not buying their own doormats.  And they're not renting their own places. 

"Increased housing demand definitely has multiplier effects throughout the economy," but there isn't increased housing demand.  So due to the lack of jobs, high debt, and the pull of the Occupieds, college graduates who can't find jobs head back home to live with their parents.  This has an impact all through the economy.  So we're not creating new households.  But yet the economy's expanding.  Did you see that the other day?  Bloomberg said it, the economy is expanding.  And yet here's this story in New York Times by Catherine Rampell about how bad it is out there.  And she concludes: "The actions of the young are self-perpetuating. Young people are reluctant to set off on their own until they have greater financial stability. But the economic conditions necessary to make them financially secure are difficult to achieve while consumers like them are still too nervous to start making big purchases, on housing or anything else."  They have just written a story in the New York Times that could be subtitled "Or why we've got to defeat Obama."  "Why we've got to get rid of the Democrat Party," is what this story really says. 

I left home on a wing and a prayer.  Nothing was guaranteed when I left home.  I left home at age 20 for $175 a week.  There wasn't any thought of staying with mom and dad when you could get out.  There wasn't any thought of it.  You wanted to get out, spread your wings, freedom. You didn't want to be dependent. You didn't want to be sponging off your parents.  You lived in abject poverty to get on your own. (interruption) Yeah, I did go back home, yeah, in fact they loved me coming back home.  I've been through this.  I worked all through high school.  I really didn't have the typical lazy hazy days of summer life 'cause I was working since 15, but nevertheless, I wanted to get out and did for $175 a week.  There was no guarantee. There wasn't any financial security.  It was a radio job.  I coulda got canned if two weeks.  It took a year, but I eventually found another one.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  We go back to the phones to San Ramon, California.  This is Ray, and I'm glad you waited, sir.  Hello.

CALLER:  Yes.  Thanks for the great show, Rush.  I called about the graduates moving back with their parents, but I quickly have to thank you.  As a charter member of the Rush newsletter, you once told us to make a sign that says, "This man is lying to you" to tape to our TV sets whenever Bill Clinton was talking.

RUSH:  Yeah, yeah, I remember that.

CALLER:  I pulled that sign out of an old box I had and I'm able to reuse it when Obama is talking, but I'm also able to use this sign whenever Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar and Rosie O'Donnell are talking.

RUSH: (laughing) Practically anybody on the left that speaks up, it's applicable.

CALLER:  There you go, that this man is lying to me.  Now, I need your help on this, professor.  We're told by the Democrats and the congo line media that 26 years old remaining on their parents' health care plan is a good thing, so why isn't it good for 26 years old to remain on their parents' cable plan as well?

RUSH:  Now, this is an interesting question.  What Ray here is reacting to is a story earlier today in the New York Times I told you about by Catherine Rampell, and it's about college graduates who are returning home to live with mom and dad; not buying their own mops; not renting their own apartments; not hiring somebody to come hang and frame their diploma; not buying their own crockery; not buying their own house; not establishing households; not growing the economy. Oh, it's horrible, and what Ray here is pointing out, but wait, but wait, if it's okay they stay on their parents' health care plan, then what's so wrong about 'em moving home and staying on their parents' cable and using their parents' mop and their parents' crockery and their parents' phone? 

It's a great question, Ray, it's an absolutely great question.  I would say that you probably, in a logical question, you've nailed 'em.  But, of course, the health care debate has nothing to do with logic.  And so the point is health care is so expensive, it's so, so, so expensive.  So the idea that young kids up 'til age 26 could stay on their parents' policy, whether they live with them or not, is supposed to entice those young people to appreciate whoever offers that opportunity and then vote Democrat.  It's a vote buying scam.  It's a vote buying technique.  Pure and simple.  Cable's expensive and satellite TV, but not nearly as expensive as health care.  Not nearly. 

But then, see, the real contradiction here is how long have places like the New York Times been railing against consumerism and the emptiness that one's life is if it's centered around consumerism?  Going out and buying things, that's so empty.  I mean it's so meaningless if your life is oriented around consumerism, don't you have enough?  Isn't one cable box per house enough?  Why should a family split up with the kids going out and getting their own cable box?  Isn't one enough?  This is what we've been treated to.

What I love about your question is that it illustrates the blatant, utter hypocrisy of the left.  They've defined trickle down in this story and they lament the fact that it isn't happening, and yet in another story in the same paper you could see an article about how trickle down is bogus, it doesn't happen, it's nothing more than a Republican trick, it doesn't really exist, and yet in the same paper is a store lamenting there isn't any going on.  But it's a great question.  It's a great question.  If it's perfectly fine to stay on mom and dad's health care, why not mom and dad's cable bill?  Why not mom and dad's electric bill?  In fact, why ever move out?  Why ever?  Thanks, Ray.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: