RUSH: This little sound bite next up is fascinating. Robert B. Reichhhh, the former labor secretary and mislabeled "professor." He's a "lecturer" at wherever he lectures. He's not a professor. He was making a speech back on September 26th, 2007, at Berkeley, at the University of California at Berkeley. He was giving a speech, and during part of the speech he said, "This is what Democrat politicians would say if they could really be honest."
REICH: We are going to have to... If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.
RUSH: Former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich speaking on behalf of the Democrat Party, University of California at Berkeley, in a speech heralded for its "openness and honesty. "What Democrat politicians would say if they could really be honest," 2007. And note the "we" here. "We" are gonna, "we are." Reich was nothing. I mean, he's a commentator on television. Play it one more time. I want you to hear this, folks.
REICH: We are going to have to... If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.
RUSH: "Take a pain pill." Obama said the same thing: Take a pain pill. A woman asked if Obama would take into account her 100-year-old mother's will to live, her spunk, and Obama said (paraphrased), "I don't think we can factor that in. We're going to be making smarter decisions here. Frankly, it's probably going to make more sense just to tell your mother to take a pain pill. You know, veg out, loop out, for the rest of her life. We're just not going to pay for it. We're going to let you die." We are going to let you die! We are going to let you die...with dignity. We are going to kill you. You are unessential. If you are a file assistant, if you're a kitchen worker, and your company gives you a bonus, "Unh-uh. We're going to take it back. You are unessential." We're going to let you die! These are the people running the United States of America. These are the people spreading lies throughout the media on everything they report. "We're going to let you die."
Robert Samuelson: "Health Spending Condemns Youth To Future Of Downward Mobility -- Every generation of Americans should live better than its predecessor. That's Americans' core definition of economic 'progress.' But for today's young, it may be a mirage. Higher health spending, increasing energy prices and stretched governments at all levels may squeeze future disposable incomes -- what people have to spend -- and public services. Are we condemning our children to downward mobility? Good question. Considering how health spending could threaten future living standards, it ought to be center stage in the 'reform' debate. Instead, it's ignored." As in: We're just going to let you die. You're unessential.
"An oft-stated view is that the growth of the US economy will make the young so much richer than their parents that they can afford a bigger health care sector and still enjoy large increases in their living standards. Complaining about providing more generous health care is selfish. This is a powerful argument; unfortunately, it isn't true. Look at the table above. It portrays the US economy from 1980, with a projection for 2030 from Moody's Economy.com. The projection assumes that the recession ends and growth revives. Superficially..." I can't read this part. There are too many numbers. I'd lose you if I went to the chart here with you, but we will link to this at RushLimbaugh.com.
"Superficially, the table suggests that economic growth can easily pay for more health care. In 2007, the economy's total output -- gross domestic product, our national income -- was $13.3 trillion. In 2030, it projected to $22.6 trillion, a huge 70% increase. (All amounts are in 2005 'constant' dollars to eliminate inflation.) Surely that's ample. Not really. First, the economy's growth is projected to slow in the future, reflecting an aging population," which we're just going to let die. "Lots of workers retire; the labor force doesn't expand much. From 1980 to 2007, GDP grew an average 3.1% annually. From 2007 to 2030, Moody's projects 2.4%" annual growth. ... "The young's future has been heavily mortgaged," too, folks.
"Downward mobility is possible. Expanding health spending would raise taxes (to pay for government insurance), lower take-home pay (to pay for employer-provided insurance) or increase out-of-pocket medical costs. Other drains also loom: higher energy prices to combat [a mythical] global warming; higher taxes to pay for underfunded state and local government pensions and repair aging infrastructure; higher federal taxes to cover deficits and payments to retirees (much of which reflect health spending). The pressures will undermine private living standards and other public services (schools, police, defense). The young's future has been heavily mortgaged. Taken together, all these demands might neutralize gains in per capita incomes, especially if the economy's performance, burdened by higher taxes or budget deficits, deteriorates.
"The road to downward mobility" as with all things liberal "is paved with good intentions," he writes. I dispute that. I don't even buy the good intentions. There's no good intentions behind any plan Obama has put into action so far, not good for us. "The health debate has focused on insuring the uninsured and de-emphasized controlling runaway spending, much of which is ineffective. The priorities should have been reversed." Exactly right. They're using the uninsured to sell this monstrosity. That's the point. What they're seeking is total control and the right -- the ability -- to regulate every aspect of our lives.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: About this Robert Samuelson piece: You know, he's right. We've always defined economic progress as each generation doing better than the previous generation. Our generation may be, thanks to President Obama, the first one to make sure that our children's lives are not better than ours. It's heartbreaking. And it's frustratingly obscene when you realize it's all by design. It's all on purpose.
