Bad Economic News for Obama
RUSH: "US Poverty on Track to Reach Highest Level Since the 1960s." "Majority of Voters Blame President for Bad Economy." "Falling Fortunes of the 1%." There's a lot of economic news out there that's not good, not good for Obama. First, economic news from the AP: "US Poverty on Track to Reach Highest Level Since the 1960s -- The ranks of America's poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the War on Poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net."
Well, it says "safety net," but we all know it's a hammock.
"Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections."
Now, folks, "erasing gains from the War on Poverty"? Hmm! There weren't really that many gains. One of the greatest things that happened to poverty was welfare reform with the work requirements, which were gutted last week by "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!" The work requirements were just stripped out of there by executive fiat. So what we have here is the AP putting out a new poverty report based on "Census figures [that] will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections," which seems odd.
Because you would think that that would be bad PR for Obama.
But I think what they're doing is they're putting this out in time for the upcoming debt ceiling debate. Some people might dare to call for cuts to welfare spending! So the AP probably thinks that all of this will help Obama. I mean, these are his voters, the people in poverty. "More People in Poverty = More Obama Voters." That's the way these people think. Don't forget Thomas Edsall in the New York Times last November. November 27th, 2011, Thomas Edsall wrote a piece and said the Obama campaign had written off the non-college degreed white votes.
White working-class voters, Obama is writing them off. He wasn't even gonna try to campaign for 'em. So here we have a report: "US Poverty on Track to Reach Highest Level Since the 1960s." They're gonna try to turn this into a plus for Obama, because, remember: All of this is Bush's fault. Obama hasn't been president for 3-1/2 years. The Obama campaign is running as though he hadn't done anything yet. It's still a big mess that he was saddled with, that he had no idea how bad it was.
He's been working really, really hard to fix it! It's worse than anybody knew! You add to it, "My God, look at poverty! It's bad. It's worse than we knew. My God, oh my! Poor Obama." But they're just more votes for him. And then here comes the debt ceiling debate, and they're gonna say, "How can you cut spending? Look at the numbers in poverty," and Obama will be their big defender. That's who his voting bloc is: People in poverty and similar economic circumstances.
The AP claims that they have "surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics ... and found a broad consensus," just like in global warming: "The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1% in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7%. Several [of these eggheads] predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965," which actually isn't true, but it's to esoteric to go into that. So, "US Poverty on Track to Reach Highest Level Since the 1960s," and I think this is just a setup to create more voters for Obama.
I mean, why would the AP put out what would be bad news for Obama?
So they not thinking in the long haul that this is bad for Obama. They're gonna try to turn it into a positive.
Startling Poll: 34% Blame President Kardashian for Economy, Only 18% Blame Bush
RUSH: Now you move on to TheHill.com. A startling story! A story some of you may say you have been dreaming of! A story you might say you've been hoping to see all of these years! And the headline says it all: "The Hill Poll: Majority of Voters Blame President for Bad Economy -- Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington's fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill. It found that 66% believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy.
"Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23% who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street," and only 18% blame Bush. Again, 34% blame Obama. The Hill writes, "The results highlight the reelection challenge Obama faces amid dissatisfaction with his first-term performance on the economy." So according to this poll, the buck no longer stops with George W. Bush; it stops with President Kardashian.
I want to see how they try to massage this.
NCAA Sanctions Penn State
RUSH: The penalties on Penn State University that were announced this morning. All of the victories from 1998 have been vacated. So Bobby Bowden is now the winningest coach in college football history. All those wins are just vacated. That takes away something from a lot of people that had nothing to do with what went on at Penn State. I'm getting e-mail. People are up in arms about aspects of the penalty. Other people are totally fine with it. The NCAA guy -- and, by the way, to show you how out of it I am, I didn't know 'til this all came up that the NCAA had left Kansas City. I thought they were in Overland Park. Well, they used to be there back when I lived in Kansas City. But now everything, I guess, happens out of Indianapolis. Anyway, Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, announced the penalties against Penn State today. And he said they're going to vacate all the victories back to 1998.
They didn't want the "death penalty," which woulda meant canceling the football season, because that would have penalized people had nothing to do with what Sandusky did and what Paterno looked the other way on and allowed to happen. So they're not gonna cancel the season but they're gonna let any player that wants transfer with no penalty, as long as he meets or requirements to. Basically the message was they can't go to a bowl game for four years.
They can't participate in any championship of any kind for four years. So the new head coach, Bill O'Brien, had a meeting with the team today. How does he sell the team on the season? They can't go to a bowl. What's there to play for? There are things I wonder about. I'm just saying that the job he has is pretty difficult. They can't go to a bowl game. Basically all you can do is sell the great tradition of Penn State. What's that now? Maybe participate in the rebuilding of a great program that once was.
But when you vacate all of the victories, and then you tell the existing team that they can't go to a bowl game for four years, and there's no championship for you, how are you not punishing the people that didn't have anything to do with it? The $60 million fine is about what they say the Penn State football program generates every year. They're gonna take that one year of revenue of $60 million and they're gonna set up basically a charity for abused kids to deal with those who are and to prevent it from ever happening again.
I'm just stuck here on the fact that they don't want to punish the players had nothing to do with this by canceling the season. Yet they are punishing them in a way by telling them that nothing they do can result in a bowl game or a championship. Nothing they do can amount to anything other than playing football for the sake of it, which... I'm just asking a simple question and maybe somebody's got the answer that I'm not thinking.
But I don't know how this isn't punishing the people that had nothing to do with it. This is guilt by association for the players that are currently playing that had nothing to do with it. Besides, to what extent...? You know, you want to vacate the victories that Paterno had. Okay. I understand that. But then, as mayor of Realville, another question emerges, and that is: Well, how did what Sandusky did help them win?
If you're gonna vacate the victories because of what Sandusky did and what Paterno knew was going on and looked the other way about, then how did what happened there with Sandusky contribute to victories? I don't think anybody would say that it did. So they had to come down hard, but, you know... Look, it would be really easy to politicize this, but I'm not going to. I'm not. Don't try to. I don't want to want to go there. "Doing this after Paterno has passed away where he can't defend himself?"
Yeah, but it's easy. I don't want to try to politicize this. I mean, it would be very easy to call these... But I'm not going to. I just have these questions about it. I wonder how many players are now gonna try to transfer out of there since they've been told there's no point. You go to Penn State because there's always a bowl. You go to Penn State because it's a linebacker factory for the NFL. You go to Penn State because it has a pedigree.
You go there as opposed to other universities because it does go to bowl games, because it does contend for championships. It does contend for the National Championship. It always is in the top ten, top 15. Now none of that can happen, and these guys chose Penn State because of Paterno or whatever other reason. Now the NCAA is saying: What we've done here might make it seem like there's no reason anymore for you to be there, so if you want to transfer out, go ahead.
And I think that's its own form of punishment, too.
Obviously it is.
Look, they're gonna ban football anyway because of concussions in our lifetime. So all this is academic. It's just a matter of time. That process is already in place. No, no, no, no. Not with this ruling, not with the Penn State crimes. I'm just saying, football-wide.