Obama Press Conference Analysis
February 15, 2011
RUSH: Well, the president just finished, amazingly on time, what do you make of this, Snerdley? A press conference before the program starts, started right at 11 o'clock straight up, and it ended right at 12 noon straight up. (interruption) No. Well, I don't think so. Snerdley says, "He wanted to get out of there. I think he's tired of the questions." I don't think so at all. I think that by holding his press conference now, Obama was able to dilute the number of budget questions with questions on Egypt. There were a lot of questions on Egypt in there in this press conference that diluted any more time that could have been spent on the budget.
RUSH: In this press conference Obama actually talked about the fact that we have to cut back on what we can't afford, that government has to live within its means like families. Now, two years ago, before he's implemented any policy, fine, say that. But two years after the biggest expansion of government spending and indebtedness -- I think I heard yesterday that all the debt piled up from George Washington to George W. Bush has now been eclipsed in just two years of Obama, or will be in four years of Obama, something like that. I mean, living within our means from this guy? This guy dares preach to us about living within our means? He's the architect of a level of debt here that for all intents and purposes can never be paid back. And anybody in their right mind knows this can never be paid back. All that can happen here is that an effort be made to pay it back so that there are people willing to invest in this country, willing to invest in our financial institutions.
Now we're faced with the prospect of at least giving the impression we're trying to do something about this debt. So here comes Obama's budget, and everybody drops everything to study it as though Obama's got all the answers? The architect of this mess now is looked to as the single figure who has the answer to the problem that he created. And he's doubling down on it. Oil as the energy source of the past. We have to cut back on what we can't afford. So much hypocrisy in this press conference. I told Cookie, "Find as many examples as you can." She wrote back, "It's the whole press conference, Rush, what am I supposed to do?" Because I've got a limit. I don't want a sound bite any longer than 60 seconds. She said, "Well, that's gonna be a tough thing to do today." I said, "Well, I may grant you a waiver now and then on sound bite lengths, it just depends." He even talked about, "We want to be honest with ourselves," he said, "when it comes to spending. We have to be prepared to look at unjustifiable spending through the tax code."
In other words, tax cuts are government spending, because they equal less revenue coming to the government, so in his distorted view of things that is spending. Tax cuts are spending. And we have to be honest with ourselves. Unjustifiable spending through the tax code would be whatever the tax rate is for the so-called rich. In fact, tax cuts, in his vernacular and his lexicon, tax cuts are the only unjustifiable spending he's ever found. Every other form of spending is justifiable. Every other form of spending is moral, it's fine, it has a reason, it has a purpose. But tax cuts, unjustifiable spending. I don't care how you define words, I don't care how convoluted you want to be, there is no way tax cuts equal government spending. Ain't possible, ladies and gentlemen.
RUSH: Here are the numbers on the red ink. It comes from Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters: "The 2011 budget shortfall, which is the responsibility of the previous Congress, is now projected to be $1.65 trillion." That's the budget deficit. "If accurate, this means that since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, [the country has] posted over $5 trillion in deficits. For the record, that's more combined non-inflation-adjusted red ink than the United States of America had created in all of the years of its existence prior to . In just four years, the Democrats recorded combined deficits greater than what had been posted in the prior 220" years. That is astounding, and one of the architects of this spending opens his presser today saying that we have to live within our means!
This is sort of like Colonel Sanders saying, "We gotta stop killing chickens! We gotta stop killing chickens!" It's like Colonel Sanders having a press conference to say "We gotta stop killing chickens." It's just mind-boggling. But I tell you what he's doing. He's playing to the independents. He's playing to people out there who... He's counting on the media not to point out what we're telling you, what you already know, that he's the architect of this stuff. This is still, "It's Bush's fault!" It's as though he's not been president for two years. "We have to start living within our means." It's like this budget! He's locked in all this new spending, and now he's calling for a freeze or what have you, after he's already codified the damage that he intended to be done to this country and to the economy.
By the way, this week marks the two-year anniversary of Obama's Porkulus bill, and he's just doing another one with all the spending in his budget. We told you he was a jackass about economics. Jackasses are notoriously stubborn. He's a jackass about all this.
RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites, shall we? This is Obama at his presser, and we'll start in chronological order here. When I heard him say this, I sent a quick note to Cookie. I said, "Give me this one. I want this one first."OBAMA: Just like every family in America, the federal government has to do two things at once: It has to live within its means while still investing in the future. If your family [is] trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, y-you might put off a vacation, but you wouldn't want to sacrifice saving for your kids' college education or making key repairs in your house. So you cut back on what who can't afford to focus on what who can't do without, and that's what we've done with this year's budget.
RUSH: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He's got the single largest deficit in the history of the country, and he's trying to tell us that we really cut back here -- yeah, with scalpel. He has $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit and $3.7 trillion spending. There's no cutting back. There's no living within our means. This is insulting. It's childish, immature, and it is insulting. Here's the next little sound bite.OBAMA: I recognize that there are gonna be plenty of arguments in the months to come and everybody's gonna have to give a little bit.
RUSH: Except you.OBAMA: But when it comes to difficult choices about our budget and our priorities, we have found common ground before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to save Social Security. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress eventually found a way to settle their differences and balance the budget, and many Democrats and Republicans in Congress today came together in December to pass a tax cut that has made Americans' paychecks a little bigger this year and will spur on additional economic growth this year. So I believe we can find this common ground.
RUSH: His budget calls for massive tax increases, massive tax rate increases on the rich, and yet here he is praising a "tax cut." There was no tax cut, by the way. He's talking about the deal that happened in the lame duck session in December. There were no tax cuts. Again, the current tax rates were simply extended for a couple years. There were no tax cuts. But even then he says they "passed a tax cut, made Americans' paychecks a little bigger, spur on additional economic growth." So he admits that in a philosophical or theoretical sense, tax cuts equal economic growth. Yet his own budget promises tax increases which will retard economic growth. Common ground? Reagan, Tip O'Neill? This is a guy who instructs his voters to "punish their enemies." This is the guy who says, "They show off with a knife, you show up with a gun." This is a guy who sends his SEIU union thugs out to beat up black guys at Tea Party rallies! Common ground.
Here's the next sound bite from the Obama budget presser.OBAMA: Well, I continue believe I'm right (snickers) so we're gonna try again. I think what's different is, everybody says now that they're really serious about the deficit. Well, if you're really serious about the deficit -- not just spending, but you're serious about the deficit overall -- then part of what you have to look at is unjustifiable spending through the tax code.
RUSH: Come on, this is --OBAMA: Tax breaks that do not make us more competitive, do not create jobs here in the United States of America.
RUSH: We're listening to somebody that doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. We're listening to somebody who sat around and ruminated with a fellow bunch of professors in the faculty lounge -- people who are obsessed with resentment, people obsessed with hatred and dislike for free market capitalism and the people who have prospered from it, a bunch of theoreticians who in the real world couldn't accomplish anything. But they're the smartest in the room. They're the smartest of all! They have all the answers. They have all the ideas. "If you're serious about the deficit, part of what you have to look at is unjustifiable spending through the tax code." I have told you the government thinks all money is theirs, and what you end up with is the result of their compassion and largesse.
They decide how much you get to have.
You may be the one getting paid, but they determine how much you end up with.
All money is government's, and therefore everything they don't get from everything that is produced, they consider spending. They consider a gift. Because they're not taking it. Even though they think they have dibs on it. How else do you arrive at some convoluted rationale that says tax cuts are "unjustifiable spending"? But that's what he said; that's what he believes. We have, I guess, one more. It was a question the Reuters White House stenographer Patricia Zengerle asked. She said, "What concerns do you have about instability, especially in Saudi Arabia, as the demonstrations spread? Do you foresee any effects on oil prices? And talking about Iran, can you comment about the unrest there? What is your message to the Iranian people in light of there was some criticism that your administration didn't speak out strongly enough after the demonstrations in Iran in 2009."OBAMA: On Iran. We were clear then and we are clear now that what has been true in Egypt is -- should be -- true in Iran, which is that people should be able to express their opinions and their grievances and seek a more responsive government. What's been different is the Iranian government's response, which is to shoot people and beat people and arrest people. America cannot ultimately, uh, dictate what happens inside of Iran any more than it could inside of Egypt. Ultimately these are sovereign countries. They're are gonna have to make their own decisions.
RUSH: Well, now, that's interesting after they just got through trying to take credit for everything that happened inside Egypt.
They just tried to take credit for everything that happened in Egypt. We really can't tell the Iranians what to do. They're a sovereign country. If they're gonna shoot people, they're gonna shoot people. If they're gonna shoot people, if they're gonna put people in jail, that's what they're gonna do. We can't really do much about that. So that was a question, by the way. I think one of the reasons for the press conference is to get into a discussion of all that that dilutes the message on Egypt, dilutes further retention to the budget and and the the deficit and so forth.
RUSH: One other thing that Obama said today, ladies and gentlemen. It all sounds good, but when you really get into it and analyze it, it's not really true, if you want to really be cold about it. Here's what he said: "You can't maintain power through coercion ... there has to be consent." You can't maintain power through coercion. Now, if you're speaking to an idyllic American audience that believes in the civics 101 version of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, really good, Obama. But it doesn't hold up. "You can't maintain power through coercion ... there has to be consent." Tell that to the family of the Jong-ils. Tell that to the ChiComs. Tell that to Fidel Castro. Tell it to Stalin. Tell it to Lenin. Tell it to Hitler. I don't care. They maintained power through coercion. Tell it to Syria. Tell it to Iran. In fact, folks, the lesson of the world would seem to be just the opposite. Regimes that are willing to shoot their citizens don't seem to have any trouble holding onto power.
Now, I see Snerdley in there grimacing 'cause he thinks I'm off on a tangent or a path that few will comprehend. Now, shooting people we don't ever envision happening here, and in fact people do not hold onto power indefinitely in this country. If you're president after eight years, you're gone, unless you start shooting people, is my point. You do not hold onto power. You constitutionally have to scram. You have to get out of there. But if an American president ever started shooting people, or ordering people shot, I dare say he would survive beyond the eight years. I don't know how much longer after that he would survive, but this is just not right. This whole line of thinking, you can't maintain power through coercion. There has to be consent. I know what he's saying. We don't have to vote on somebody, we elect them, and we have therefore consented to their governance and, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that's the idyllic way of looking at it. But I'm telling you, the sad history of humanity is oppression, tyranny, poverty, and you name it, all brought about by authoritarian dictators who are willing to shoot people who dissent. They hold onto power that way.
Now, they eventually are toppled, but they're certainly in power longer than eight years. It just is what it is. I mean eventually the Soviet Union imploded on itself. The ChiComs would have but they're having to modernize a bit with free market capitalism in certain areas, but they're still shooting people. They still put 'em in prison. They still have their reeducation camps, and I guarantee you if they ever get Taiwan back, what do you think's gonna happen to the population of Taiwan? They're gonna immediately be sent to reeducation camps, probably never to be heard from again. 'Cause even if they pass the reeducation test, nobody's gonna believe 'em. So the regime will just get rid of 'em. The real danger is that coercion does maintain power. Quite the opposite. Again, this is just faculty lounge hem-hawing that's designed to sound attractive to independents and others, you know, he paid scant, little attention, but in truth is one of the reasons why we are the exception.
Our government has never shot people. We have yet to elect somebody who was willing to shoot people to stay in power beyond his constitutional limits. Given the history of the world, that's a pretty mean accomplishment, that's pretty significant. It's a fragile thing that we have here in this country, and that's why there are so many people alarmed by what they see. There have seldom been in people's lifetimes this kind of assault on the day to day freedoms that seem to be routine here and these assaults are disguised as economic policies, or oil drilling moratoriums. I mean you start limiting the access people have to gasoline, because we have a regime who, for whatever convoluted reason, thinks that oil is an energy source of the past, let's talk about your freedom.
Folks, I would be very guarded about your cell phone, the ability of citizens to talk to each other represents a great threat to people who want to control the population. It just is what it is. I mean what's the first thing they did in Egypt? Shut it down. They got to it too late, but they tried to shut down the ability of the, quote, unquote, revolutionaries to communicate with one another. They tried to shut down the flow of information to people in Egypt to find out what the world thought about what they were doing. Well, guess who's asking for control of the switch to shut down the Internet? Barack Obama. Of course, folks, this is all done, the mythical national security emergency down the road, depending on where you look, it may be happening in your community, some city council or state legislature, somebody is trying to pass laws saying you can't use your cell phone in the car, even if you have a hands-free version. I got a story somewhere, doesn't matter where, that they're trying to pass a law that you cannot text on your phone at a red light, much less while you're driving.
"Limbaugh, that makes all kinds of perfect sense, people distracted in their cars, can run over children and a number of other people unsuspectedly in the streets and so forth, it makes perfect sense for the government to say that we can't." Yeah, where do you draw the line on this? Once you start agreeing to the government saying you can't do this, you can't that, where does it stop at some point? But the biggest thing to note about it is that there are those who want to restrict this kind of freedom, and it's always under the guise of public safety, saving somebody's life or what have you. Very fragile thing we have here and that's why there's a Tea Party trying to defend it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: The president of the United States exhibits no spending discipline whatsoever. You are to cut back on your vacation. You are to stop eating out. You are to forgo repairs on your home. You have to live within your means because you can't print money. He can, and does.