RUSH: Do you want to hear more Obama sound bites? I pretty much covered this. Okay, here’s Obama continuing. He’s explaining that he is a product here of the welfare state. We’re up to number nine.
OBAMA: Their basic view is that no matter how successful I am, no matter how much I’ve taken from this country… I wasn’t born wealthy. I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. I went to college on scholarships. There was a time when my mom was trying to get her Ph.D. where, for a short time, she had to take food stamps. My grandparents relied on Medicare and Social Security. Their notion is: Despite the fact that I’ve benefited from all these investments, somehow I now have no obligation to people who are less fortunate than me.
RUSH: Okay, so here’s Obama. If this is not convoluted, I don’t know what is. He says with this sound bite, he is a product of the welfare state. Republicans think that he shouldn’t have to give back when he’s taken. It’s difficult to understand, but what you have to know to understand it is the level of rage he feels; the degree of anger the man has toward this country to even say something like this. “Yeah, we had to go on food stamps! We had to do this. She was trying to get her Ph.D. and she had to make food stamps, rely on Medicare and Social Security. I’ve benefited from all these investments. Now I have an obligation of people who are less fortunate than me.”
That’s not the point. You are trying to make it the only way people can get anywhere is by having ’em go through you! That’s the difference. We are a compassionate society of people who genuinely need help and who can’t fend for themselves. We are the first country to step in and assist. What Obama wants is for everybody to have to go this way. The assumption is that everybody is incompetent, that everybody is incapable of making these decisions or succeeding like this on their own. The only people who do are cheaters and thieves and liars. This is what liberals believe. They want everybody to have to go this route; that’s the only way things will be “equal.” That’s the only way outcomes will be the same. It’s the only way it will ultimately be fair. But hidden in this is a level of resentment that’s gotta be so intense, otherwise… This kind of thinking is convoluted and radical for an American. The bitterness in this is just dripping, even off the sound bite.
RUSH: So now we know, folks, Obama’s never had an entrepreneur in his family. He has never had a producer; he’s never had an individualist. Here he is using himself as an example. He’s a child of the welfare state. That is his experience. His adult career has been about expanding it. That’s all he knows, and he has a deep-seated resentment about it at the same time.
RUSH: I’m gonna play this sound bite again, ’cause, my friends, I think this sound bite is full of it. Well, I say “the sound bite.” It would be a little bit hard for the sound bite to be full of it. Obama is full of it on this sound bite. There are some unbelievable things here, especially contrasting what we know and what he wrote about in his book. So here we go. This is last night in Palo Alto at headquarters of Facebook. Obama here is explaining that he is a product of the welfare state.
(replaying of sound bite)
RUSH: Now, that really is convoluted. It’s filled with bitterness and resentment and it’s also filled with illogic. If we are to believe this, then we are to believe that Obama has never had an entrepreneur in his family. He’s never had an individualist, never had anybody who took care of themselves — and he uses himself as an example here, his upbringing. See, this is part of the problem. His experience, according to what he said there at Facebook, is the welfare state. His adult career has been about expanding the welfare state, whether as a street agitator, community organizer, or president.
So he’s projecting his experience and background, which is that of a taker and user on the rest of society. There’s virtue in taking! There’s virtue in using! (impression) “Why, my family wouldn’t be anywhere without it. I wouldn’t be anywhere without it,” and rather than have some appreciation and gratitude for those who paid into the system and subsidized him and his family, he harbors this deep resentment. That’s what’s convoluted about this. Wouldn’t a guy who makes this statement to a bunch of young skulls full of mush at Facebook show some appreciation? No. No appreciation. He resents the workers. He resents those who paid into the system.
Don’t forget, this is a guy who has a brother who still lives in a hut, as far as we know. He has yet to send him anything, including a little sign that says “Hut, Sweet Hut.” There has not been a hut-warming party, nothing. However, is all of this true? (interruption) Damn right I question this! There is no record anywhere that Obama’s mother was ever on food stamps. Remember, his grandmother was the vice president of a bank. Stick with me on this. His grandmother was the vice president of a bank. His stepfather was an executive for an oil company.
Now, Obama never mentioned his mother being on food stamps in either of the books that he wrote, either of his navel-gazing autobiographies. He never once mentioned his mother being on food stamps (which, if it’s true, is very hard to believe). Also, for what it’s worth here, Obama was not living with his mother when she was trying to get her Ph.D. He was living with his grandmother who was a vice president of one of Hawaii’s biggest banks. So why was mom on food stamps while grandma was a VP at a big bank? Because she was in college? I don’t know if that’s even legal.
And while all this was happening, Obama was attending one of Hawaii’s most expensive prep schools. While mom was supposedly on food stamps. So we don’t even know what about the sound bite’s true. I don’t know how many of these questions he got were genuine or how many of them were scripted because he had various things he wanted to say. But, folks, he wanted to rip into people. He wanted an excuse to rip into people who he wanted to characterize as being opponents of the kind of welfare state that he wants to create. Don’t forget, he wants everybody to have to go through the same process that he claims his family went through.
I mean, let’s review this: “I went to college on scholarships. At the time my mom was trying to get her Ph.D. and for a short time, she had to take food stamps. My grandparents relied on Medicare and Social Security.” His family had the means to provide for themselves, and yet they went the food stamp route? His family has got a brother living in a hut! Folks, if Obama is serious here about the need to “give back,” then why didn’t he pay the full 35% tax rate on his income last year instead of settling for the 27% that his accountants cooked up for him?
He only paid 27%? He could have paid 35%. So I don’t care how you look at this: If you believe what Obama is saying, there’s nothing about which to say, “Let’s stand up and cheer!” If this thing is chock-full of lies, then that speaks for itself. You know, I could remember — and I always said when I was young that when I got old I was not gonna be an old fuddy-duddy. I was not gonna be the kind of person I didn’t like growing up. I got so sick and tired of my parents and grandparents, “I had to walk to school in the snow with no shoes! You should be thankful for a ride.”
Well, I knew I wasn’t gonna be walking ten miles to school in the snow. I got sick and tired of hearing that so I figured, “When I get to be their age, I’m not gonna use that kinda talk on young people.” Well, I gotta make a little bit of a change here ’cause I remember this. You know, I’ve been fired seven times, out of work seven times. One of those times I went on unemployment compensation — and, folks, I know I’m opening myself up here, but I was embarrassed. There was a stigma to it. (interruption) Yeah. (interruption) Yes, even unemployment. (interruption) Well, there shouldn’t be a stigma attached to it!
“You paid into it, and you probably didn’t deserve to be fired.” Well, in my case I’m sure they think I did deserve to be fired, but regardless. Back then it was a stigma to be known as somebody on, quote, unquote, “relief.” I’m talking about the seventies, 35 years ago. There was a stigma to welfare. Today there’s none, and here Obama is out there applauding that as the pathway. This is the greatness of America right here! He tells this story as a means of explaining why America is great, but there’s not one syllable worth of appreciation for the people working who made all of these benefits for him and his family possible.
All there is is a bunch of resentment — and for some reason now it becomes more and more clear, as this guy speaks more and more, what his agenda is. He’s got an animus toward those who made it possible. Now, why would that be? Let’s say we take it hypothetically as true. His poor mother, trying to get her Ph.D., was on food stamps (while his grandmother worked at a bank and his stepdad ran an oil company). Why harbor resentment? Why not thank the people whose taxes made possible the Social Security and the Medicare and the food stamps and whatever else they accessed?
And then demand more!
And then somehow claim that America’s unfair because of it.
Now, what is obvious to me is that this guy harbors a deep resentment about all this rather than an appreciation — and this chip on his shoulder (which, I’ve got a lot more on it than just this story. I mean, there’s a racial component, as you know, and other elements). Now he sees a need to get even with this country, or this country needs to be gotten even with itself. Regardless, this is illogical, irrational, convoluted, delusional, angry. Food stamps are now a badge of honor. We advertise their availability. We advertise the availability of food stamps. Extending unemployment compensation is the essence of benefits, essence of compassion. It’s the essence of how we as a society show we care. What are we doing?
We’re destroying the whole concept of work.
Purposefully, I think.
RUSH: Start in Houston. John, hi. Great to have you on the EIB. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, what an honor to speak with you. Cut nine was a great sound bite, fired me up. And my point is some of us are givers our entire lives, and we never take. Every other week we give, we give, and we’re not giving back, we’re just giving.
RUSH: And you’re the cowards, in his world, you are the cowards.
CALLER: I’m a coward. Well, I’m a little scared talking to you, that might be cowardly.
RUSH: You needn’t have any fear talking to me here, none whatsoever.
CALLER: Well, even President Obama gives back every other week, you know, in his paychecks, and we don’t complain. It’s not that we don’t want to give. It’s that we don’t want to give any more than we already are giving.
RUSH: Well, there’s another aspect to this, too. I mean what did he talk about in this bite? He talks about food stamps. What does this have to do with anything? Is somebody proposing eliminating food stamps? He’s talking about reforming it. Is he talking about eliminating student loans? No, of course not. Where is the proposal that Obama’s rebutting here? So once again, nobody’s talking about eliminating the program, but Obama wants you to think so. That’s courage, folks, lying to you about what’s in the Ryan budget. That’s courage with that answer, trying to make you think the food stamp program is up for grabs here, student loan program is up for grabs. Is somebody proposing eliminating Medicare? He made a big deal about, yeah, grandparents, Social Security, somebody talking about eliminating it? No. What Ryan wants to do is come up with a way to make it solvent and sustainable. It’s filled with common sense.
So, Mr. Courageous, Mr. Bold, Barack Obama arguing about something that’s not even happening. The efforts that he is obstructing here are attempts to control massive, unsustainable spending since he was elected. We’re talking about his effort to spread the wealth. We’re talking about his massive new entitlements. We’re talking about a bloated bureaucracy. And Obama does not want to talk about any of that. So he changes the subject and he tries to boldly go where every liberal tries to boldly go, and that is accuse us of wanting to take away food stamps and take away the student loan program and take away Medicare. Food stamps, unemployment benefits, compensation benefits, have expanded under Obama for one reason: the misery that his policies have caused. If there is the expansion of one thing that overrides all other things and creates other expansion, it is the expansion of misery. Obama’s policies have multiplied misery in this country, to the likes which we’ve not seen it.
Now, he thinks that the welfare state should replace capitalism. That’s what he’s arguing for here. That’s what sound bite number nine is. “Look at me. I got here.” And that’s what made the country great. That’s what he thinks. Greatness is because of stuff that enabled him to go to school, his family to eat and what have you. What he’s arguing for is a permanent welfare state that is the country. That’s what he’s doing. And that’s why he’s not talking to adults. That’s why his audience is a bunch of kids, either at community college or Facebook friends or whatever. ‘Cause after all most of them are still on the take. They understand it. They’re not finding for themselves yet. They’re still in school or still in the midst of the idealism of the world being one giant utopia. So here comes the guy who claims he’s got the recipe to create it. That’s why he seeks those audiences. Let’s grab audio sound bite number ten. After number nine, which we’ve pretty well dissected, he segued into Medicare, and here comes the comment about how we want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
OBAMA: What they’re saying is somehow some remote bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you. All we’re saying is if we’ve got health care experts — doctors, and nurses, and consumers, who are helping to design how Medicare works, more intelligently, then we don’t have to radically change Medicare. I think it’s fair to say that their vision is radical. No, I don’t think it’s particularly courageous. Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, for people who are powerless and don’t have lobbyists or don’t have clout.
RUSH: Utter BS. Their vision is radical, reforming a program to sustain it. Reforming a program to where it’s paid for is radical. Oh, no, that’s not courageous. Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor. How about nothing easier than destroying a country on the backs of people who aren’t even born yet so they can’t even oppose it? How about the courage of raising taxes on people who have not even been conceived? How about raising taxes and spending the earnings of people who are not even a thought yet in the minds of their future mom and dad? How about that for courage? What kind of courage is it to end up with an effective tax rate of 72 to 75% to pay for all of this, and set it up so that people who are not yet born are going to have to pay that; people not yet born who cannot even oppose you. That’s courage? That’s greatness?
Tom, central Virginia, welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Wonderful to have you with us.
CALLER: Thank you very much, Rush, for taking my call. I’m just on my way between meetings to do my part to pay for somebody else to slack off for a little while longer. I called for a reason. I really appreciate your crack research staff, Mr. Snerdley checking dates out for me, but if you would indulge me for just a moment. On sound bite number ten there was one key point that just gets under my nerves. The fact that what Obama is doing is intelligent, that infers that what anybody else is trying to do is unintelligent, and that just gets on my nerves beyond belief. But the reason I called, when I was a child, I had a single mom for quite a while as well. I was born in ’60. I believe Mr. Obama was born in ’64. I specifically remember no food stamps. We had to go down to the welfare office to pick up our government cheese and our government powdered milk and our government powdered eggs. We were not handed coupons to go to the grocery store to go shopping. I do believe Mr. Obama being nearly the same age, probably if his mother was on some form of government assistance, would have had to go down to the welfare office to do the same. Mr. Snerdley looked it up and he said that the food stamp program was initiated in ’77. That would have made Obama 13. It’s plausible —
RUSH: Wait just a second here. Wait just a minute. Did I just hear you correctly?
CALLER: I believe you did, Rush.
RUSH: You said that Snerdley told you that the food stamp program was created in 1977?
CALLER: That’s your crack research staff.
CALLER: Yep, so I find it hard to believe that his mother was on food stamps when the program at that time was a welfare office.
RUSH: Right. The coupons were enacted in 1977. Right. You’ve been on hold here for ten minutes.
CALLER: Yeah, not long.
RUSH: So Snerdley has known something he could have told me for ten minutes, but waited for you to get on the air to tell me so that you could claim credit for it as though Snerdley was doing research for you, a caller, rather than for me.
CALLER: It was planned —
RUSH: This is one of the most… go ahead, you can talk your way out of this, but there’s no way that you two can slither out of this one. I caught ya.
RUSH: All right, further research: There was a food stamp program with coupons in ’65, but only for 22 states. So we’re trying to find out if Hawaii was one of those 22 states. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 went into effect in ’65 but the US Department of Health and Human Services says only 22 states participated at that time. We don’t know yet if Hawaii was one of them. We’re gonna find out.
RUSH: Ron on the Left Coast, it’s great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hail, “Augustus Limbonius.” I always wanted to say that. (chuckles) Hey, Rush, I work for a tax agency, and I used to be a tax collector —
CALLER: — and I believe the whole federal welfare argument is really skewed.
RUSH: What is a tax agency? Do you work for the government?
CALLER: It would either be working for the IRS or one of the state agencies.
RUSH: I see. Okay. You don’t want to specify but you work for a tax agency. I just wanted to make sure I understood it right.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: I didn’t want to think you worked at H&R Block or something like that. You work for a taxing authority?
CALLER: I work for the government.
CALLER: And I really believe the whole welfare, federal welfare argument is skewed. Case in point: My brother and I both have lots of kids. Each of us have lots of kids, we both work, and each year we receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds simply because we have children. Yet my brother believes… He’s an ardent liberal and I’m not. He believes that corporations get all the “welfare” in the world, if you will, and that nobody else really does, especially that we don’t. So I asked him, “Okay, what’s welfare? Isn’t it getting money you didn’t earn? Somebody else is paying that money, and you’re getting it,” and I said, “Hey, you know, are corporations getting welfare? Well, no, they’re getting to keep more of what they earn. Instead, us,” him and I, “because we have kids, we’re getting welfare — they’re called tax refunds — on money we never paid in, and it’s thousands of dollars every year.”
RUSH: What’s he say to that?
CALLER: Oh, my goodness, he went nuts! He went ballistic. But he couldn’t argue the logic of it — and, again, I’ve worked for a tax agency. I bring in revenue, tax revenue. Now, one thing that’s important to say is that I’m grateful for this money. It actually helps me provide for my family. It encourages people to have kids, maintains the workforce — the workforce is already shrinking — but at the same time, it’s only right to acknowledge, “Hey, we’re getting money we didn’t pay in, and this is what it is,” and I don’t think it’s right to go after corporations and call it welfare. That’s disingenuous.
RUSH: It’s a tactic. It’s a tactic trying to create more and more thinking like your brother’s. They’re just trying to create more and more of your brothers with that kind of rhetoric.
CALLER: Absolutely. What’s sad is that, like, in the terms of… I won’t mention it. There are a lot of people, unfortunately, that have certain situations in their life, whether it be multiple children… I have a bunch, and I support my kids. I worked. I went to college. I paid my own way. But many people — I don’t want to be too specific, but — they seem to look for every angle to get, get, get, get, get.
RUSH: Oh, they wouldn’t worry about saying that.
CALLER: I’m sorry?
RUSH: I mean, you know it. You deal with it firsthand. There are scam artists out there that game the system, and not just the tax system.
CALLER: But they don’t say thank you and they expect it. They absolutely expect it!
RUSH: Of course.
CALLER: It’s like their right, and it’s like, “Well, how is that so?”
RUSH: Well, of course. You heard Obama, sound bite nine: He doesn’t thank anybody. One quick question before you go here. When you explained the logic of this to your brother and convinced him that he was getting money that he hadn’t paid — that he was getting money essentially given to him by others — did you say he couldn’t refute that?
CALLER: No, he went through all this… You know how things go when things like that get too close and personal. It went against what he didn’t want to believe, like in the book Dune it says (paraphrased), “What the mind can’t encompass or agree with it automatically rejects”?
RUSH: Okay. So he rejected it? He didn’t want to go there?
CALLER: Well, what he said is, “Look, I pay taxes!” and what he was talking about, really — in my brother’s case — is that he does. He has tax withholdings, and so every year he can file his tax return. That’s true, but I told him, “The difference is you opt to have your taxes withheld,” because he has so many children, he actually is tax exempt. He does not have to have a zero-bit of withholding from federal or state every paycheck.
RUSH: Good Lord! How many kids are we talking about here, ten or 11?
CALLER: All you need is, like, between three and five depending on your income. He has five.
RUSH: All right.
CALLER: So he paid zero in tax every paycheck and I said, “But corporations can’t.” I said, “That’s your option and what you’re doing is you’re using that money as a big cushion so at the end of the year you file your return and you get all this money — money you’ve opted to pay in but you didn’t have to,” and I said, ‘Corporations don’t have that opportunity. They have to pay their quarterly estimate.”
RUSH: My point is, you hit him between the eyes. You said, “You’re getting money back that’s essentially not yours.”
RUSH: Now, if he were to be —
CALLER: He didn’t like that because that went against his beliefs.
RUSH: Why? He’s a big welfare guy, right? He believes in it!
CALLER: Pretty much.
RUSH: Well, okay. You just called him a welfare recipient. You just said, “Hey, you know, you’re making out like a bandit like the corporations do and so forth.” If he decries it, if he doesn’t like the corporations getting all this welfare, have him give the money back! Of course he won’t do that, because at the end of the day it’s always about the money.
RUSH: Don’t ask me. I don’t know about kids and taxes. Snerdley wants to know if you can be with more than one woman. I have no clue. I don’t know if you can have ten kids with three women and collect, 15 kids with three women, I don’t know how it works because missing from my equation is kids. (interruption) Would I want kids just for the deduction? No. BS. Don’t tell me I wouldn’t have to pay taxes. The deduction for kids is such that if you’re not paying any taxes because the number of kids you have your income is not all that high to begin with. Don’t tell me that I wouldn’t be paying any taxes. If you’re telling me that if I went out and had five kids and I had no taxes, now we might talk. But I know that that’s not the case. Don’t even go there.
We’re still trying to get the bottom of this food stamp business. Like I’m looking at a story now, the first food stamps actually passed out during the Depression, 1939, name of the woman who got them. Now, the first time they were free where you didn’t have to pay a portion of it with the coupons was 1977. But there were food stamps in years prior to that, but you had to contribute to it, and I remember Obama was willing to slash funding for food stamps to pay for one of his bailouts for the states, if you recall. We need to find that because if anybody has proposed cutting food stamps, it was Obama, same thing with $500 billion in Medicare cuts. It was Obama who’s proposed those two things. I asked earlier after playing sound bite number nine, who’s talking about this? He’s out there celebrating the fact we’ve got food stamps, we’ve got Medicare. I said, “Who’s cutting them?” Somebody show me where there’s a plan that cuts them or eliminates them, and there isn’t, of course. And then I remembered it was Obama who proposed $500 billion in Medicare cuts to get his health care bill to come in in total cost under a trillion dollars, and he has proposed cutting food stamps.
It’s August 14th of 2010 from TheHill.com: “Democrats May Use Food Stamp Money to Pay for Michelle Obama’s Nutrition Initiative.” That’s what it was. “Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food-stamp program to fund a state-aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.” Well, shazam! As Gomer Pyle used to say. The Democrats and Obama slashed the food stamp program to pay for a bailout for one of the states and for a program of Moochelle Obama’s. “The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food-stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state-funding bill.” That was the second stimulus. That’s right, the second stimulus, in order pay for it Obama was proposing cutting food stamps on top of $500 billion in Medicare cuts. That’s right.
RUSH: Who’s next? Jordan in Charleston, South Carolina. It’s great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Mega dittos from Charleston, South Carolina.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I just wanted to say one thing — and I never, ever hear it said — and that is that when Obama speaks, he speaks as if anyone who has made a success of themselves, anyone who has been successful has done so at the cost of the American people and has taken money away from the American people. And in reality it could not be farther from the truth. The CEOs, the inventors, the engineers, all these people of ability have given us everything that we have today. Everything that I’m seeing in this room, someone has provided, you know? And I never hear it said that we owe these people so much more. You know, by what right do we have to sit and say, “Produce everything that I want! Produce my iPhone, produce my car, produce my Internet, my power,” and then say, “Oh, and let me have all your money, too.”
RUSH: That’s an excellent point. Every inventor, creating, whatever, provider of a service is portrayed as evil and has done it by steal from you, has done it by denying you. They’ve gotten rich by denying you service or stealing your money or whatever when, in fact — you’re right — it is just the opposite. That’s why I mentioned earlier — your point is right on the money — where was Obama’s gratitude for the people that made that story of his possible? His grandmother on food stamps or his mother on food stamps and all that, where’s the gratitude for the people that made it possible? Where’s the gratitude throughout our society for that? There’s none. There’s a resentment and a hatred that’s applied to the achievers, and they’re targets now — and they must pay! They must pay. It all resolves around fairness. It’s not fair that some people should succeed and others shouldn’t.
CALLER: Exactly. Thank you so much for everything you do.
RUSH: I’m glad you called. That’s a great, great, great way of putting it. But they’re just playing numbers. As far as Obama and the Democrats, the way they look at it, there are far more failures than there are success stories — and if you’re in the game for votes, go where the votes are. So if there are more failures than winners, go out and get the votes of the failures by telling them they are the backbone of America.
RUSH: So let’s sum it up. Where are we? Let’s look at things this way: Why are we, the citizens, having to defend ourselves against a president who seeks to take our jobs, our homes, our cars and money away from us? Why? When did it become acceptable that a president flies around the country, trashes citizens, smears citizens, and that’s considered good politics — and that’s what he’s doing! Our caller at the bottom of the hour is right on the money. All of these people that invent and create and provide services, they’re the enemy now? They’re the ones who need to be punished?
It’s okay for a president to fly around and demonize citizens, to force more and more people out of their houses, off their farms, out of their jobs and then insist that these people be forced into the welfare state? And, after all that, demand that he deserves their praise, that he deserves their thanks? After destroying their livelihoods — destroying the engine of private wealth creation, destroying all of what is the greatness of America — then we’re supposed to thank him for it? You tell me: Does Obama sound like somebody who believes this country will be flourishing in the next two to four to six years? Nope.
Does he sound like somebody who wants this country flourishing in two to four to six years? He does not. He’s out there touting poverty! He’s making the case for welfare and reliance. He’s out selling those things. He’s running on the food stamp program, on the unemployment program. Does this sound like anything that you’ve ever experienced before in a president? Does it sound like Reagan’s “shining city on a hill”? Does it sound like anything a man who cherishes liberty and productivity would say? Folks, it’s outrageous!
The speeches he has made the last two to three days are simply unacceptable. He’s out promising more of the same: More unemployment, more food stamps, more homelessness. It’s what he’s saying. If you think the nation’s on the right track, then he’s your man. That’s the bottom line. If you’re poor and you think everybody else ought to be poor, he’s your guy. If you’re poor and you want to get rich, he’s not your guy. If you think the best we can do as a country is rising unemployment, rising gas prices, rising food prices, rising inflation — if you think that’s what’s best, if that’s what we need — Obama’s your guy, ’cause that’s what he’s defending.
RUSH: Now, we’ve heard Obama before. We’ve heard what Obama is saying before. We’ve heard it from Che Guevara. We have heard it from Mao Tse-tung. We have heard it from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. We have heard it from every Soviet leader. We’ve heard of all this hatred for the rich. We’ve been where Obama wants to take us all around the world.
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.