This mythical, nonexistent Republican "war on women" was supposed to work. There's a reason it didn't. There are many reasons, actually. But I think the primary reason why this so-called Republican war on women doesn't work, isn't working and won't work is: For three years there has been an unmitigated, nonstop Democrat war on Sarah Palin alone. And then you throw in Michele Bachmann or any other prominent conservative woman, and there's a war on all of them by the Democrat Party with their comedians, with their elected officials. I don't care who it is, there were no boundaries on this one. There has been an unmitigated war on Sarah Palin.
And even people who pay scant attention to politics during the course of a week, as opposed to people like you who are immersed in it, couldn't help but notice it. So here the people who are literally trying to destroy Sarah Palin for three years (make it four because let's count the year of 2008), now all of a sudden they come out and say there's a Republican war on women? It just doesn't fly. It's sort of like the Democrats fail to dynamically score economic proposals, budgets. They use a static analysis. And by that I mean they'll propose a tax increase, and they'll just assume (this is the static analysis) that everybody will just sit there and pay it and that the amount of money they raise in tax is what they're gonna get flowing into the Treasury.
Well, dynamically that doesn't happen. Dynamically people take action to avoid paying the taxes. So raising taxes never raises the revenue that they project. Well, just as in this case they have a static circumstance. They go out, create this mythical Republican war on women, and they just expect everybody to believe it, and then for there to be appropriate fallout. "No more Limbaugh. No more Republican nominee having a chance," blah, blah, blah. And then when Obama's own polls plummet and nobody buys into the so-called war on women mounted by the Republicans, the Democrats scratch their heads. "What happened?" Just like they scratched their heads when they raised taxes and no money flows into the treasury, "Wh -- wh -- what happened?"
Because they don't account for the dynamics. And the dynamics of the Republican war on women are that they're the guys that have been waging war on Republican conservative women for three-and-a-half, four years (primarily Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann). So dynamically people say, "Wait a minute! You guys claim that somebody's running a war against you?" These are average Americans that assess this. So the left never factors the dynamics into anything, be it economic proposals or other things. You have the two sets of polling numbers, and they were devastating.
We also had the gas price going up with Obama making speech after speech about it. We had the confusion yesterday over whether or not there was going to be a release of oil from the US Strategic Reserves. Other big news this week was we learned that Obamacare is going to cost twice as much as we were promised just two years ago. Two years ago, they told us Obamacare was going to cost $940 billion over ten years. The CBO this week revised the number to $1.4 trillion over nine years. And when they factor a full ten years of spending in Obamacare, then the total cost will be over $2 trillion. So that's a brief review of what's happened this week.
Now, here's the latest within this timeline: "President Obama's 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the" CBO, which is said here to be nonpartisan. "The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade." Sharp contrast? Sharp contrast? The CBO says Obama's budget will add $3.5 trillion and the Obama White House said that it would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion? That's a swing of $6.7 trillion, and they call that "sharp contrast"?
This is a lie!
So we have the Obama administration lying about the costs of health care and now lying about the costs of Obama's budget -- not to mention the president lying about oil and green energy and all of that. It's stunning. Phony numbers! "The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion" and instead they're gonna raise the deficits by $3.5 trillion. Now, this is from TheHill.com. Let me read another paragraph: "The differences between the estimates from CBO and the White House budget office are attributable to different baselines and economic assumptions, and a big reason CBO expects the deficit to spike sharply under Obama's budget is that CBO's baseline assumes all the Bush-era tax rates will expire at the end of 2012."
Well, you have to assume the Bush tax cuts are going to be expire. That's what the law says as of today, and Obama has made it clear he wants them to end. Obama wants higher taxes. He said so! He is campaigning on repealing the Bush tax cuts. That's what his base wants to hear. So the CBO has got no choice in the matter. "Obama wants to continue the middle-class tax cuts, something reflected in his budget." So the bottom line is that virtually every set of numbers that we get from the Obama administration simply is not true, and that's why I would like to posit an idea. Here's a question for, perhaps, Republicans in the House of Representatives: Why not investigate the unemployment numbers?
I mean, if they're lying to us dramatically about the cost of health care, and if they are lying to us dramatically about budget deficits coming down, isn't it likely that they are lying to us about their unemployment numbers every week? If those numbers are as phony as the original CBO Obamacare reports on cost and coverage -- if the unemployment numbers are as phony as the promises of what the stimulus bill would do for jobs, if the unemployment numbers are as phony as recent poll numbers showing Obama with a 50% approval number, if the unemployment numbers are as phony as Obama's budget deficit numbers are -- then the unemployment numbers have to be a lot worse.
And I might add, ladies and gentlemen, the CBO -- the sacred, nonpartisan CBO. (Oh, what magic words those are!) The nonpartisan CBO just reported yesterday that up to 20 million Americans may lose coverage under Obamacare.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, are you getting all of this? I run through this stuff pretty quickly. It's easy for me because I've got it right here in front of me. I have been blessed with a nice, good memory. All of this will be up at RushLimbaugh.com. You'll be able to see all of this. I will tweet some of this stuff out, too, but are you getting this? This week has been incredible. It's been profound. All-time low Obama approval in the New York Times. You people are "stupid," John Harris at Politico said. "Stupid!" The polls are "broken." The poll respondents are stupid. Obama is making it up about energy and oil, bombing out in every area of green energy. Wind, solar are bombing out.
He's steadfastly opposed to progress, steadfastly committed to this silly notion that oil is somehow a poison when it's as natural as sugar. It's as natural as anything else that comes from the earth. Why is oil so bad? Why is oil such a filthy thing? There are a lot of things that are much worse -- and oil has been, like me, a godsend. (interruption) Well, that's what the feminazis said this week at their convention, that I was a "godsend." I'm not saying that. They are. They said I was a godsend. That makes me God's gift to women. Really, why does anybody even accept the notion that oil is a poison? What, oil spills now and then convince everybody it's rotten to the core? Who dies? It's just silly.
So we're gonna look into alternatives that don't exist? For what purpose?
Washington Times: CBO: Obama Budget Deepens Debt by $3.5 Trillion
No comments:
Post a Comment