Glenn Beck: Obama says fundamentals of economy are strong




Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...


PRESIDENT OBAMA: But like those ads for prescription drugs, you've got to learn to read the fine print to learn the rest of the story to find out the side effects. You see, Senator McCain would pay for his plan in part by taxing your healthcare benefits for the first time in history. I want everybody to be clear about this. This tax would come out of your paycheck. So if you make $40,000 a year and you've got a healthcare plan that cost your employer $10,000, now instead of being taxed on $40,000, you are going to be taxed on $50,000. Your taxes go up under his plan.

GLENN: Okay. So that's what he's saying. And so you know, John McCain's comeback to that was, no, I'm giving tax credits to pay for it so it levels the playing field. My point on that was why would you take it here and then give it back over there? It's already too complex.

Let's just take the Tim Geithner thing. Tim Geithner, let's say he paid his taxes. He didn't. He knew -- he was signing papers every quarter. He knew exactly what he was doing. Tim Geithner intentionally cheated on his taxes. I believe that with everything in me. The guy is a gambler. He is a dangerous man. But there were others that probably intended on paying their taxes. They are saying guy after guy after guy goes up now to work for Tim Geithner and they are saying the reason why none of these guys are working, why I don't believe, they are saying the reason why none of them have to get passed, all of them have to withdraw is because none of them have paid their income tax, none of them have paid right. Well, okay, that says one of two things. One, that everybody in America is a crook, or two, the tax code is too complex. It's 80,000 pages. The tax code is a weapon. They want it to be that complex because that way they can use it against you. It's 80 thousands pages. Either everybody in America is a crook or it's too complex. One way or another we should find out which it is and we should solve that problem.

Barack Obama's plan now looks like it will do exactly what John McCain just suggested! Barack Obama's running out of people to be. I mean, he's been every president. Now we're going on to presidential candidates. Now he's becoming John McCain. That's not the only thing. And by the way, help me out. Anybody who runs a small business or anybody who, you know, gets healthcare, help me out how that helps healthcare or how that helps your job, how that helps your personal bank account or how that helps business. Somebody explain that. I can quickly explain how that's going to help nationalized healthcare because if you get it from the government, it won't be taxable. So I understand how that helps Obama and socialism but I for the life of me can't figure out how taxing people's healthcare benefits helps on any of the things that they say they want to do. I can't think, not one way. Help me out on that.

Now here's the other thing. Remember when John McCain came out and talked about the economy and how the media just ripped him apart? Listen carefully what John McCain said.

SENATOR McCAIN: Know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it's -- people are frightened by these events. Our economy I think still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong but these are very, very difficult times.

GLENN: Okay. Why did John McCain say that the fundamentals of the economy were sound? Do you remember that? He was hammered as somebody completely out of touch. Now, this was back in September. That John McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are sound. This is when Wall Street was about 10,000 points? Do you know? Just look it up. This is when most of America still didn't see what was coming their way. And the fundamentals. Now, he came back and said that the fundamentals were sound because of the American worker, because of the entrepreneur. He's right. He's right. If you do not handcuff the American worker, if you don't handcuff the small businessman, if you don't handcuff the entrepreneur, the dreamer, the person that creates, the fundamentals are sound. We are still America. We're going to get ourselves out of anything. But once you handcuff those people, once you punish those people, well, then the fundamentals are not good.

What did you say, Stu?

STU: Back in September it was about 11,000.

GLENN: 11,000 is when he said that. That was the stock market is 11,000. It's now at 76 -- sorry, 7200. And mark my words, this is a bear rally. This is a sucker's rally. This is a destroyer of wealth. That's all this is. The fundamentals of the economy are not sound now because of government. It started with George W. Bush; it's continuing and accelerating under Barack Obama. No one knows what the government is going to do next. No one knows how they are going to punish or who they are going to punish and so the fundamentals are bad because people who do have money or have access to money are sitting on it because they don't want to invest because they don't know what's coming! So the fundamentals are not good.

But here's Barack Obama. Remember, John McCain, he's an idiot because the fundamentals are sound because of entrepreneurs and small businessmen and the American worker. Here's Barack Obama.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We are keeping focus on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy.

GLENN: The economy's fundamentally sound. Do you have any more clips, Dan? Do you have the person over on, what was it, Meet the Press this weekend? You can get the text for me? Because they asked, "Isn't this the same thing that John McCain said?"

STU: I love this. This is fantastic. This is one of his chief economy, you know, heads in the administration. Romer said that

When the president says he's focusing on fundamentals, what he means is, is we're focusing on, on fixing the fundamentals; that we've always said we're not looking at the ups and downs of the stock market, we're looking for those crucial indicators: When are jobs turning around, when are sales turning around, when do we see consumers coming to life? That's the kind of thing that--certainly that I'm looking at. But isn't that the same thing McCain asked in 2008? Romer said where we are in 2008 is obviously not good. We have a plan in place. I think the fundamentally crucial difference is to make sure you have put in place all the comprehensive programs that will get us back to the fundamentals. The president said in terms of fundamentals we need to make changes. That's why he is focusing on energy, education, getting the budget under control.

GLENN: The budget -- first let me ask you something. Getting education under control, that is a 20-year process. The government has only screwed education up every step of the way. That's a 20-year process. So how is that going to fix the economy by making sure that that little girl's school doesn't shake every time the train goes by? How is that going to fix the economy? We get the basic programs in place. You tell me what program the government has ever created that created wealth. Show me the government program that creates wealth. It doesn't. It doesn't. It destroys wealth. They are not betting on the American worker. They are not betting -- unless it's a union. They are not betting on the entrepreneur. They are not betting on you. They are betting on them and it is a fundamental, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what America is.

STU: This is absolutely amazing. McCain -- this is what Romer said. The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have good capital stock, we have good technology. That's the Obama advisor. Here's McCain on why he said the fundamentals are strong. The American worker and their innovation, the entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America and I think they are strong. Those are identical. The only difference is technology instead of innovation. I don't think there's that much difference there.

GLENN: Stock market, didn't he say stock market, the first guy?

STU: No, he said the fundamentals of the economy -- this is his explanation. The fundamentals, the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America and I think they’re strong.

GLENN: And that's McCain? Give me the other guy

STU: This is Romer. Of course fundamentals are sound, Romer said on Meet the Press. In the sense that the American workers are sound, we have good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We have seen a huge job loss, we've seen large falls in GDP, certainly in the short run we're in a bad situation. And then McCain: As you know there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets in Wall Street.

GLENN: We are trying to give you -- we have the art department tonight working on something. I don't know if we're going to be able to get to it tonight for the 5:00 show. We are trying to show you what a trillion dollars actually looks like if we stacked it up. It's amazing. Absolutely amazing. But we're going to tie it to a new study that is showing that we are going into debt, into such unbelievable debt that by the 2050s, 2060s, we are going to be in the quadrillions, quadrillions. That's a trillion trillion, right, Stu? A thousand trillion? I don't even know, 1,000 trillion. I'm going to show you 1 trillion tonight -- maybe tomorrow. As soon as we get the art department -- it's really, it's -- and we want to make sure it is accurate. So here you have a trillion. 1,000 trillions is a quadrillion and they say that's what we're headed for. You tell me. You tell me how our children pay for that. You tell me the fundamentals of our economy are sound. They're not sound. They are out of their mind. And it's not just the Democrats. It's both of them. Remember, 40% of the earmarks were Republicans. Let's base ourself back onto principles, please. Let's celebrate and learn the Constitution. Let's learn the words of the founders.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.