NAGs Advise "Mental Health Breaks" When Listening to Us
RUSH: Gonna have a little fun with the NAGs today, folks, our friends at the National Association of Gals, popularly known as the National Organization for Women. As you know, they've teamed up with Media Matters to get me off the air. And they have this big joint push that starts in 14 days -- two weeks from today -- May 18th. And in a news story about this they are advising, suggesting that women who listen to the program take "mental health breaks" during the program. Turn it off for a while for mental health.
Lights Could Go Out Across UK by 2030
RUSH: TheScotsman.com: "Lights Could Go Out Across UK by 2030, Warns Power Supply Report -- The risk of the UK being hit by power blackouts by 2030 has risen as the economic crisis hampers efforts to upgrade the electricity infrastructure, experts have warned." What do you mean, "upgraded the electricity infrastructure"? Who's doing that? "A hard-hitting report into global energy requirements said more needs to be done to secure the country's electricity supply." This story introduces a new term: "Fuel poverty."
We have "food insecurity" and "fuel poverty."
"The prospect of households experiencing frequent power cuts as a result of demand for electricity outstripping supply in less than two decades' time was raised in the study conducted by energy experts at PricewaterhouseCoopers. The report, which was based on the views of 72 executives in power companies across the world, revealed that half of those surveyed saw a medium to high probability that the number of customers in fuel poverty will increase significantly over the next 20 years, particularly in Europe."
CNN: Why Obama Can't Match the Reagan Recovery
RUSH: Let me put it this way: CNN has got Obama's back. "Why Obama Can't Match the Reagan Recovery." That's the story at CNN: "Why Obama Can't Match the Reagan Recovery," and CNN goes through the recent unemployment numbers and admits that they're disappointing.
Heck, what's his name, Ted Turner was on Piers Morgan last night, the guy who replaced Larry King. And Ted Turner said (paraphrased), "Ah, you know, Romney wouldn't be bad. Romney wouldn't be bad president." If you're losing Ted Turner, things cannot be good for you. That would be Obama. So, anyway, CNN: "Why Obama Can't Match the Reagan Recovery," and they go through the recent numbers, and they admit that the employment numbers are disappointing. So Obama won't be able to run as the new Reagan like he had been trying to do.
But then CNN says: Well, things were different in 1984. CNN says that Reagan had it easy because inflation was high and the national debt wasn't as bad, so it was easy to just cut taxes. Now, some might say this is journalistic malpractice. It's something else. It's just plain economic ignorance. It's economic ignorance combined with an unshakeable bias. Reagan had it easy because inflation was high and the national debt wasn't as bad? Who did that? Who gave us high inflation?
That was Jimmy Carter, and high inflation was eating away at everything everybody owned! And here's CNN trying to make it out to be a positive in terms of an economic recovery. Yeah, inflation was high, and the national debt wasn't as big. Well, why is the national debt so bad now? Barack Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous presidents' deficits, annual deficits combined. Barack Obama (let me put this in this perspective) in 3-1/2 years, has created more national debt than all the previous presidents combined.
So, yeah, Reagan didn't have as high a national debt -- and Obama wouldn't, either, if he hadn't been such an irresponsible spender and if he would have some responsible tax policies and some responsible spending policies. So it's easy to just cut taxes! Oh, is cutting taxes the way out of this now? Is that what CNN's saying? It was just easy to slash taxes? Gee, if it were only easy to cut taxes, Obama could do that, and then he could replicate Reagan?
Is that what CNN is saying? They clearly don't intend to say that because in the handbook at CNN is: "We hate tax cuts." You probably can't get hired at CNN until you answer properly the question: "We hate tax cuts, especially for the rich." Everybody that used to work at CNN that believed in tax cuts now works someplace like Stuart Varney or Lou Dobbs. They're not there anymore. (interruption) Well, yes, I'm being a little facetious, but there's always truth in good comedy.
The fact of the matter is CNN is so discombobulated they don't know what they're saying. They're saying, "Gosh, it would be great if Obama could really do what Reagan did." But wait a minute! Up until now CNN has tried to say that what Reagan did was pointless, worthless, useless, didn't matter. Now, all of a sudden, what Reagan did, "Oh, it would be so great if we could emulate it," but sadly Obama can't emulate it. No, "Obama Can't Match the Reagan Recovery." I thought there wasn't a Reagan recovery!
I thought the Reagan recovery was lies and falsehoods and made-up stuff. They are so discombobulated, they don't know what they're doing. They're validating the Reagan recovery at CNN! Whoever did this is not long for that network. 'Cause they're basically saying, "Oh, if Obama could only do the Reagan recovery (sobbing), but he can't because, look! Inflation's not nearly high enough, and the national debt's too high. And because of that, our guy, Obama, can't cut taxes!"
Can't cut taxes?
Since when does a Drive-By Media outlet believe cutting taxes equals economic growth? The Drive-By Media have been arguing against that for I don't know how long. For those of us in the media (and I'm much closer to it than some of you are), I'm telling you: This is big. Not because of the consumer impact 'cause CNN's audience is not bright enough to understand what's happening. But you are, and that's why I'm spending time telling you. But this represents a total implosion at CNN.
This just means everything they believe has gone out the window. This tells me that people inside CNN finally figured out how bad it is for them as well as the country, because now this jobs number report comes out and CNN has to admit it's disappointing. They can't even focus on 8.2% to 8.1% and sing its praises, 'cause they see only 115,000 jobs created. They see all the stats. They know how bad it is. So now they have to long for a recovery, and which recovery do they cite?
They hate Reagan!
CNN, since the 1980s, has been doing everything it can to discredit Reagan at every opportunity. Now all of a sudden: "What a shame, Obama can't do what Reagan did! Aw, no. He can't cut taxes as easily." Well, since when has CNN been in favor of that? Inflation was up to 18% under Jimmy Carter. So Reagan had it easy. Inflation was high and the national debt wasn't as bad. Easy to cut taxes! So 522,000 people fall out of the labor force. The labor force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1981. And, as they say at Zero Hedge here: "It's just getting sad now."
The pretense is over. This might even do Obama in. The fact is the only network out there that's even trying to puff this up is AP. "In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000," 88.5 million people. "This is the highest on record," while the unemployment rate drops. Nobody buys that. Let's put it this way: Fewer and fewer people are buying this.
Start-ups at All-Time Low
RUSH: Census Bureau data published on Wednesday of this week says the startup rate fell to an all-time low of 7.87%, down from 8.1% in 2009. So Snerdley was right. A staff member told me something that's actually correct and I don't have to explain that I was wrong in imparting. The startup rate is at an all-time low.