Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for
Speaker 1: everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we do lots of big breaking news updates, So
Speaker 2: we've got the very latest for you on that effort
Speaker 2: to pass a cr as Senate DEM's plot what their
Speaker 2: move will be. We got some new inflation numbers, potentially
Speaker 2: good news for this White House amidst economic turmoil. Some
Speaker 2: interesting new comments from Tommy Tubberville as well. Do so
Speaker 2: far in terms of the alleged cut spending goal not
Speaker 2: really making a dentctually. Spending is up after even all
Speaker 2: of their chainsaw efforts, So break down what that means.
Speaker 2: We've got the latest for you on Machmu Khalil and
Speaker 2: some other censorship efforts. We've got Zionists claiming a scalp
Speaker 2: in the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: This was an important battle.
Speaker 2: Didn't want to let this one slide by Greasy Gavin
Speaker 2: meets sloppy Steve. Have some highlights from that podcast to
Speaker 2: share with you and what it all means about the
Speaker 2: future of the Democratic Party. And it is the end
Speaker 2: of an era at Southwest Airlines. They are now going
Speaker 2: to charge for bags, joining the rest of the industry.
Speaker 4: So very sad to see.
Speaker 3: It's sad to see because I think it just really
Speaker 3: is a demarcation point in the overall US economy and
Speaker 3: the consumer experience. We live truly in the idiocracy in
Speaker 3: the world in which we're all just going to get
Speaker 3: it charged for everything in corporate States of America.
Speaker 1: It's sad. It's sad. Christal, what do you got here?
Speaker 1: This is a new one for you. Chris has got
Speaker 1: an energy drink on the cask. Usually I'm only calani.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the way, we're not getting paid for this
Speaker 3: not getting.
Speaker 2: Paid this is it's sort of like a taste, like
Speaker 2: a cream sickle. They're delicious, and it's almost like bottled cracks. Okay,
Speaker 2: there you go halfway through it.
Speaker 4: So still getting more interesting as we go along.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get to the cr I hate this
Speaker 2: topic because it's so like in the weeds DC. But
Speaker 2: the TLDR is if the House in the Senate did
Speaker 2: not pass some sort of budget funding, then the government
Speaker 2: is going to shut down in a day's time. The
Speaker 2: House Republicans were able to pass a continuing resolution.
Speaker 4: They lost one vote from their caucus.
Speaker 2: They gained one vote from the Democratic caucus, but pretty
Speaker 2: much done a party line vote. They did not negotiate
Speaker 2: with the Democrats on this. I'll give you a few
Speaker 2: more details about the CR ups defense spending a little bit.
Speaker 2: It reduces some domestic spending by a bit. It has
Speaker 2: some other provisions in it that Democrats really object to.
Speaker 2: So that passes the House on more or less a
Speaker 2: party line voote.
Speaker 4: Then it goes to the Senate.
Speaker 2: Well, the sun is a little more interesting because of
Speaker 2: the filibuster rules, they have to get seven Democratic senators
Speaker 2: because Rand Paul has already said he is not going
Speaker 2: to vote for it. So it was looking yesterday like
Speaker 2: the Democratic senators were just going to cave and vote
Speaker 2: for this CR. And this is extremely consequential because it
Speaker 2: is really the only time when Republicans are going to
Speaker 2: need Democrats for anything at all, So this is truly
Speaker 2: their only moment of leverage. The Democratic base is very
Speaker 2: adamant that they do not want Democratic senators to help
Speaker 2: Republicans to fund the government and give what they see
Speaker 2: as a cart blanche to Trump and to Elon to
Speaker 2: continue doing whatever the hell that they want to do.
Speaker 2: So there has been a mass mobilization of the Democratic
Speaker 2: base to call their senators and tell them vote no.
Speaker 2: So yesterday it was a real open question. It looked
Speaker 2: like they were going to cave. And then Chuck Schumer
Speaker 2: gets on the Senate floor and seems to indicate a
Speaker 2: different strategy.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 4: he has to say.
Speaker 5: Republicans chose a partisan path drafting their Continuing Resolution without
Speaker 5: any input, any input from Congressional Democrats. Because of that,
Speaker 5: Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to
Speaker 5: invoke cloture on the House CR. Our caucus is unified
Speaker 5: on a clean April eleventh CR that will keep the
Speaker 5: government open and give Congress time to negotiate by parties
Speaker 5: in legislation that can pass. We should vote on that.
Speaker 5: I hope, I hope our Republican colleagues will join us
Speaker 5: to avoid a shutdown on Friday.
Speaker 2: So what he floats there is a thirty day quote
Speaker 2: unquote clean CR, which means the same funding levels as
Speaker 2: currently exists, no messing around, no different provisions, no rolling
Speaker 2: back this, no adding money to defense, et cetera, just
Speaker 2: for thirty days so that they can negotiate on a
Speaker 2: broader package. So initially there were a lot of you know,
Speaker 2: democratic activists who are like, oh my god, they're actually
Speaker 2: not going to cave. But what it looks like is
Speaker 2: actually probably happening, although not this is a done deal yet.
Speaker 2: Is that they are more it's less that they're not
Speaker 2: going to cave and more that they're coming up with
Speaker 2: a strategy to try to trick their own base into
Speaker 2: thinking that they're fighting for something.
Speaker 4: So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is the latest Fromanu Raju over at CNN. He
Speaker 2: says John Thune, who's the Senate Majority leader now and
Speaker 2: takes the procedural step to bring the House spending bill
Speaker 2: to the floor. The vote would occur Friday morning, hours
Speaker 2: before the government shut down deadline. Un less there's an
Speaker 2: agreement to have it sooner, sixty votes would be needed.
Speaker 2: Schumer is threatening to block it, but senators on both
Speaker 2: sides think and agreement to give Dems an amendment vote
Speaker 2: for a thirty day extension, which would fail, could help
Speaker 2: end the standoffs so effectively. Democrats strategy appears to be
Speaker 2: that they're going to push for this show vote on
Speaker 2: a thirty day cr They're going to vote for closures,
Speaker 2: so they're going to you know, not filibuster the whole thing.
Speaker 2: Their little thirty day show vote will fail. But since
Speaker 2: they've already voted for cloture, that means that Republicans can
Speaker 2: move forward with their and pass it with a bare majority.
Speaker 2: They no longer need the Democrats and things move forward. So,
Speaker 2: like I said, I know that was a lot, but
Speaker 2: the TLDR is that Democrats appear to be trying to
Speaker 2: come up with a plan to trick their own base
Speaker 2: into thinking they are not caving, when they in fact
Speaker 2: are caving.
Speaker 3: Right it's hilarious because it would take people like us
Speaker 3: to have to sit here and to explain it to everyone.
Speaker 3: But the point is is that this is actually fecklessness
Speaker 3: on their part because they're getting a lot of pressure
Speaker 3: to try and appear as if they're standing up to Trump.
Speaker 3: And if you compare it to let's say, the Tea Party,
Speaker 3: I mean, they would have no qualms whatsoever of voting
Speaker 3: this thing down. They're like, absolutely not, you're going to
Speaker 3: give us what we want. Oh, the houses out of town.
Speaker 3: We don't care shut the government down. If you think
Speaker 3: about it too, you know, the White House seems to
Speaker 3: think that they would be on strong grounds for a shutdown.
Speaker 3: I don't think that that's true because people usually blame
Speaker 3: the party and power of all three, and the executive
Speaker 3: largely is the person who absorbs all of that. I
Speaker 3: think actually one reason I heard floated is that Democrats
Speaker 3: are terrified of a shutdown because then Trump gets to
Speaker 3: decide who is essential government personnel and who's not, so
Speaker 3: it would only be even easier for him and Doged
Speaker 3: to fire the employees. But broadly, people should be aware
Speaker 3: here the Democratic leadership is rudderless.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what they're doing.
Speaker 3: The Democratic senators are actually getting quite a bit of
Speaker 3: calls and others to their offices telling them, hey, please
Speaker 3: like do something, and they just refuse basically to even try.
Speaker 3: So they're trying to show people, oh, well, we did this,
Speaker 3: But I mean, I don't think.
Speaker 1: That people, voters and others are going to buy it.
Speaker 3: They're going to see at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: nothing goes through the Senate unless the Democrats want it
Speaker 3: to pass. Like, let's be clear here in a world,
Speaker 3: in a world without the filibuster, and he still needs
Speaker 3: sixty votes for cloture.
Speaker 1: If the Dems vote for it, they know exactly what
Speaker 1: they're doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's right, and so I think they
Speaker 2: if this is what they go forward with with.
Speaker 4: Again, not a done deal yet.
Speaker 2: And guys, if you want them to stand up, you
Speaker 2: can call them and let them know.
Speaker 4: And I know many people out.
Speaker 2: There that are, but I do think if they you know,
Speaker 2: it's almost worse. Like just just if you want this
Speaker 2: thing to go, then just freaking vote for just vote
Speaker 2: for it, Like, don't mess around, don't try to trick
Speaker 2: people into thinking you're fighting when really you're not.
Speaker 4: Like don't. Don't do that.
Speaker 2: I think that will actually just piss people off even
Speaker 2: more because they're going to see through the trick. Let
Speaker 2: me go ahead and play Primeilagiapola, of course, a progressive
Speaker 2: leader in the House, warning Democratic senators of exactly what
Speaker 2: Tager is saying, which is, you may face a real
Speaker 2: backlash if you go along with Republicans and this one
Speaker 2: moment when they need you and when you have some
Speaker 2: leverage to potentially extract something from them in this negotiation.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what she has to say.
Speaker 6: They should refuse to allow this bill to pass in
Speaker 6: the Senate. If they don't, I think there's going to
Speaker 6: be a huge backlash from across the country, and I
Speaker 6: think all of them will. You know, we'll have to
Speaker 6: deal with the consequences of that.
Speaker 7: The Republicans have the White House, the Senate, and the House.
Speaker 7: If they want to do this, and if they want
Speaker 7: to screw over the American people, they can do this
Speaker 7: with their votes and their party. I do not believe
Speaker 7: that Democrat ship participated.
Speaker 2: And to Sager's point about the Democratic leadership being rudderless,
Speaker 2: we have all known for months now that this shutdown
Speaker 2: fight was coming on March fourteenth, and yet they had
Speaker 2: not worked out a strategy, they hadn't really aggressively messaged
Speaker 2: around it. So you know that there isn't a clear
Speaker 2: cut like Okay, here's what we're demanding in exchange, like
Speaker 2: we will support we don't want to shut down the
Speaker 2: government because we're Democrats and we support the government whatever.
Speaker 4: But here's our list of demands.
Speaker 2: None of that has been developed, none of that has
Speaker 2: been messaged to address what Sager was saying too about
Speaker 2: you know, the concern that listen. Number one, for Democrats,
Speaker 2: it's uncomfortable because they are the party of like, hey,
Speaker 2: we actually think that government does some good things. It's
Speaker 2: a different ideological orientation versus the Tea party that's like
Speaker 2: screw government whatever, we don't care if it shuts down.
Speaker 4: So that is uncomfortable.
Speaker 2: But to address that core concern of like, okay, so
Speaker 2: if there's a government shutdown, then maybe you're just handing
Speaker 2: power to Trump an elon to say who's essential and
Speaker 2: who's not. And I just look at that and I'm like,
Speaker 2: what world are you living in? Because they're already operating
Speaker 2: that way. I mean, we just got the you know,
Speaker 2: Department of Education just got slashed by half this WEEKAID
Speaker 2: was just completely dismantled, as was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Speaker 2: Like probationary employees were mass fired across the government. Elon
Speaker 2: endger deciding what they feel like spending and what they don't.
Speaker 2: So that ship has sailed. Like they already are calling
Speaker 2: the shots on literally everything. They are racking up losses
Speaker 2: in terms of the court system, but as you can tell,
Speaker 2: like that is taking a long time for any of
Speaker 2: that to be enforced or final decisions to be made,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And meanwhile they're just rolling through and doing
Speaker 2: them whatever they want. So if you think that you're
Speaker 2: protecting something by going along with this and continuing like
Speaker 2: the government is effectively already in a shutdown in a
Speaker 2: certain sense because Trump and Elon have already claimed those
Speaker 2: powers for themselves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it is just ironic that really what
Speaker 3: we're watching is a fall apart of the democratic strategy,
Speaker 3: which doesn't have a singular pillar like last time, which
Speaker 3: was just Russiagate, and so this time around, whenever they're
Speaker 3: trying to be and find a message, they just don't
Speaker 3: really know quite what to do. I also think that
Speaker 3: there is an elderly aspect to this with Schumer. Where
Speaker 3: Schumer is a traditionalist of the White House, he's not
Speaker 3: somebody who's ever read the base and or its moment,
Speaker 3: so his political movement is not one that at least
Speaker 3: like with McConnell. McConnell was an old school creature, but
Speaker 3: he understood very clearly the assignment. If we'll all remember
Speaker 3: the famous quote of him in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 3: and he's like, our job is to get Barack Obama
Speaker 3: not reelective period. He's like, we're not here to do
Speaker 3: anything else. Our job is to defeat Obama.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 3: We need to hold up the president's agenda. And he
Speaker 3: laid it out very clearly. That was a big scandal
Speaker 3: in Washington at the time, but if we're looking back,
Speaker 3: it was the correct strategy if you were working on
Speaker 3: behalf of the Republicans, because with the republic and saw
Speaker 3: is their base hated Obama and they didn't want anything
Speaker 3: to do with any senator or whoever was going to
Speaker 3: play ball. And that happened in the Tea Party wave.
Speaker 3: Many of the people who got took out many of
Speaker 3: the incumbents, even in their primaries, were those who saw
Speaker 3: as too conciliatory to the administration. So at a political level,
Speaker 3: they just have no clue yet what they're dealing with
Speaker 3: right now. And I do think it's a I think
Speaker 3: it's a big problem for them.
Speaker 2: I mean, I would be inclined to agree with your
Speaker 2: assessment that it's like elderly garontocracy is I think that's
Speaker 2: part of it. But then when you see Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 2: who was like eighty three years old, he's out there
Speaker 2: and like leading charged. I mean, Bernie has, Bernie has
Speaker 2: Bernie is the leader of the Democratic Party right now,
Speaker 2: like he has stepped into that role.
Speaker 4: I think that is you know.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's true.
Speaker 4: I think that is absolutely true.
Speaker 2: In terms of the he is the one person who
Speaker 2: is like setting the bar of Okay, here's what we're
Speaker 2: going to do, and here's how we're going to move forward,
Speaker 2: and here's how we're messaging. That's what I mean by
Speaker 2: he is the leader of the Democratic Party at this point.
Speaker 2: It's sure as hell is not Chuck Schumer. And so
Speaker 2: I think it's less an issue of his age and
Speaker 2: more an issue of a like a cowardice that has
Speaker 2: set in at the core of Democratic Party electeds, especially
Speaker 2: like elected leaders. They are so afraid of rocking the vote,
Speaker 2: of facing some blowback, of having to make a case
Speaker 2: of really getting into the arena. And that's to me
Speaker 2: what really comes through here, because again we've known the
Speaker 2: shutdown fight was coming. Okay, if you don't think this
Speaker 2: is the place to take a stand and like put
Speaker 2: your chips down and like use what little bit of
Speaker 2: leverage you have, then what is your other plan, Like
Speaker 2: give an alternative where you're like, okay, well, no, we're
Speaker 2: not going to do it.
Speaker 4: But here's where we really think we're going to take
Speaker 4: a stand.
Speaker 2: It's not gonna be on reconciliation, which is the next
Speaker 2: big thing that's going to come up, because that doesn't
Speaker 2: require you, that requires only a bare majority vote in
Speaker 2: the Senate. There is no sixty vote fili on the
Speaker 2: reconciliation bill. So where is the other place where you're
Speaker 2: going to take any sort of a stand. So that's
Speaker 2: why I mean it really it's just so clear that they.
Speaker 4: Are not up to the moment.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like it's telling that they feel at least some
Speaker 2: pressure from the base, like okay, we've got to at
Speaker 2: least try to trick them into thinking we're fighting for something.
Speaker 2: But I think your fools if you think they're really
Speaker 2: going to fall for it. The last thing I wanted
Speaker 2: to mention about this CR, and this will transition into
Speaker 2: the block we're about to do about the economy, which
Speaker 2: is just a little interesting nugget in there. You know,
Speaker 2: they put these little provisions in and think that nobody's
Speaker 2: really going to notice. They can put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. So inserted into this Continuing Resolution is an
Speaker 2: item to what The New York Times describes as quietly
Speaker 2: seed power to cancel Trump's tariffs, avoiding a tough vote.
Speaker 2: So it says, House Republican leaders on Tuesday quietly moved
Speaker 2: to shield their members from how to vote on whether
Speaker 2: to end President Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China,
Speaker 2: tucking language into the dural measure that's the CR that
Speaker 2: effectively removes their chamber's ability to undo the levees. The
Speaker 2: maneuver was a tacit acknowledgment of how politically toxic the
Speaker 2: issue become for their party. Another example of how the
Speaker 2: All Republican Congress is seating its power to the executive branch.
Speaker 2: So They don't want to have to take an up
Speaker 2: or down vote on Trump's teriffs because they don't want
Speaker 2: to get crosswise with Trump.
Speaker 4: But business world hates the tariffs, tear the terifs are
Speaker 4: averia and popular at.
Speaker 2: This point, so they're just like, okay, we just we're
Speaker 2: going to wash our hands of it and just let
Speaker 2: you do whatever, and we're not going to have any
Speaker 2: say in it.
Speaker 3: What Here's that's really not surprising actually at all, because
Speaker 3: why would you want to take a tough vote? This
Speaker 3: is also part of the problem with all of these
Speaker 3: things getting lumped together as usual. They always don't want
Speaker 3: to make it so they have to take single up
Speaker 3: or downs. But I don't know, I'm curious to see
Speaker 3: if that's soak based reaction. I mean, my thing with
Speaker 3: the only reason I said, I don't think Bernie is
Speaker 3: the leader. I think that's a little bit of progressive
Speaker 3: wish casting. Like it's not like this democratic base is
Speaker 3: all on board with Medicare for all or all this
Speaker 3: other stuff.
Speaker 1: They just want somebody to quote fight.
Speaker 3: So Democrats, like you know, they want the act that's
Speaker 3: like the beating heart of like what they think is
Speaker 3: being a Democrat, right, now I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm just skeptical because if this were true, then that
Speaker 3: guy's doorn would be winning, you know, hands down in
Speaker 3: the New York City primary, right, And it's just not
Speaker 3: going to happen. Like I mean I said, I think
Speaker 3: our editorial call, my call is Cuomo by fifty.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 3: The truth is is that these traditional Democratic politicians and others,
Speaker 3: even if as long as they embody like somewhat of
Speaker 3: the fight, they seem to be massively more popular, you know,
Speaker 3: than any so called of like actual progressive politics. So
Speaker 3: I just don't think we can say Bernie is quote
Speaker 3: the leader of the Democratic Party. I just think that
Speaker 3: the fight and all of that is being dispersed in
Speaker 3: popularity across the board. But there are still like serious
Speaker 3: policy differences and even like theoretical differences in power and.
Speaker 1: All of that that are working out right now.
Speaker 4: So let me let me parse that a little.
Speaker 2: We could say more of this conversation with the block
Speaker 2: we have coming up about the Democrats. So first of all,
Speaker 2: I disagree with you that the base doesn't want to
Speaker 2: medic for all, even when I mean, when Bernie was
Speaker 2: losing to Joe Biden, still a overwhelming majority of Democratic
Speaker 2: base voters preferred medicare for all. But the reason they
Speaker 2: voted for Joe Biden is because they thought he was
Speaker 2: more electable and they wanted to defeat Trump, and that
Speaker 2: was their number They were convinced of that, and that
Speaker 2: was their number one issue. So it really, you know,
Speaker 2: didn't have Ultimately, the election didn't turn on medicare for
Speaker 2: all in the Democratic primary.
Speaker 4: If it did, Bernie, they would have picked Bertie Sanders.
Speaker 2: That's number one, But number two, you're absolutely right that,
Speaker 2: you know, from talking to Brian Tyler Cohen, you get
Speaker 2: the sense like it's not that Democratic based voters have
Speaker 2: suddenly become like more progressive in terms of their ideological valance.
Speaker 4: They just want someone who will fight.
Speaker 2: So if that person is Jasmine Crockett, who is more
Speaker 2: mixed in terms of her you know, the ideological valance
Speaker 2: of her, she's been like pro Crypto, she's been more
Speaker 2: like pro Israel. But she is a fighter and she's
Speaker 2: very charismatic and she's not afraid to get in there
Speaker 2: and mix it up. Like they will take her, they
Speaker 2: will take al Green, they will take Bernie Sanders, they
Speaker 2: will take aoc. It really you're one hundred percent correct
Speaker 2: that it has much less to do with where they
Speaker 2: position themselves on a left right spectrum and more about
Speaker 2: where they position themselves on. Are you willing to actually
Speaker 2: stand up and fight and do something and at least
Speaker 2: show that you're upset about what's going on in this era?
Speaker 2: And so I think that's that's really sort of the
Speaker 2: core here. And you know, if you are a Democratic
Speaker 2: leader who thinks that the right thing to do is,
Speaker 2: for example, to just like, you know, hang out and
Speaker 2: make nice with Charlie Kirk all day, it doesn't really
Speaker 2: matter where you are on the ideological spectrum, They're going
Speaker 2: to see that as totally unaccepted.
Speaker 3: I want to see to see if the because for
Speaker 3: this theory to work, then these people have to start
Speaker 3: actually getting serious primary opponents and losing. And so I mean,
Speaker 3: we're not really going to find that out first, Yeah,
Speaker 3: another eighteen months, but I'm curious, like, let's watch everybody
Speaker 3: and if anybody sees a serious challenge to a real
Speaker 3: Democratic incumbent, let us know, because I want to track
Speaker 3: those camp pains and maybe we can compile like a
Speaker 3: spreadsheet or something and then check we can.
Speaker 2: Have the justice and props people on and talk to
Speaker 2: them about what I'd be curious.
Speaker 3: I mean no offense to them, though, but it's like,
Speaker 3: you know, they don't have a very good track record here.
Speaker 3: So that's what I just I am very skeptical of
Speaker 3: all these people's political judgment. I have not yet seen
Speaker 3: any truth to the fact that these folks are truly
Speaker 3: harnessing anything to like be able to win an election.
Speaker 3: You know, you can have some power, you can have
Speaker 3: some social media buzz and that, but actually winning is
Speaker 3: is a very very different thing to.
Speaker 4: The other person.
Speaker 1: I'm still very skeptic.
Speaker 2: The other people that'd be interesting to have on are
Speaker 2: the indivisible people, Yeah, because they're not they're not burning people.
Speaker 2: In fact, they were sort of adversarial to some of
Speaker 2: the burning primary candidates.
Speaker 1: It was I forget Indivisially.
Speaker 2: They sprung up after Trump was elected the first time,
Speaker 2: and they were like these sort of core resistance group
Speaker 2: that sprung up in counties across the country. And so
Speaker 2: they are the ones who again they're they're ideologically they're
Speaker 2: just like squarely in the sort of democratic liberal mainstream
Speaker 2: and thoroughly disgusted with the lackluster rudderless approach of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party. So you'd be interesting to talk to them
Speaker 2: and see what they're hearing from their groups.
Speaker 4: And I know that they're one of the.
Speaker 2: Groups that Kim Jeffreys was pissed off at them because
Speaker 2: their members were like calling Democratic leadership and telling them
Speaker 2: to stand up.
Speaker 4: I know that their meetings have.
Speaker 2: Been flooded with people who are showing up like what
Speaker 2: can we do, how can we fight back?
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: And again, this is not you know, this isn't Justice Stom,
Speaker 2: it's not Bernie Aligned. This is like base liberal resistance
Speaker 2: voters who are now truly disgusted with Democratic leadership in
Speaker 2: a way that is so different from twenty sixteen, when
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi was a hero and Adam Shift was a
Speaker 2: hero and they felt like Democrats were truly fighting for
Speaker 2: them and on their behalf and they were loving MSNBC
Speaker 2: and all of that stuffy So I think it'd be
Speaker 2: really interesting to talk to them about what shifts there,
Speaker 2: what kind of energy they're seeing, and how they're feeling
Speaker 2: about how things are going, because again, Democratic leadership is
Speaker 2: underwater with the Democratic base, and I've never seen that
Speaker 2: be the case.
Speaker 3: If a Republican leadership's always underwater with the Republican base.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's then they always.
Speaker 4: But that's the point is like the Tea Party was
Speaker 4: a real thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah it was until it wasn't right, And it's like
Speaker 3: it was and then Paul Ryan was there and he
Speaker 3: was unpopular even though he was a Tea Party guy.
Speaker 3: And then Mike Johnson is here and he's unpopular you
Speaker 3: know with the base who came before him, McCarthy, he
Speaker 3: was unpopular. But so it's like, I don't know, it's
Speaker 3: one of those where uh they everyone.
Speaker 2: Congressation general who were a rebellion on the Republican side.
Speaker 1: Yes, and now you have a.
Speaker 2: Democratic base that is showing much more rebellion than they
Speaker 2: previously have visavi their own leaders and media outlets.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Me even think about like the three hundred thousand people
Speaker 2: who dumped the Washington Post when they didn't endorse Kamala
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, that's it really is different, because
Speaker 2: that's what determined the twenty twenty election, is that the
Speaker 2: like liberals were like, tell us suit to vote for,
Speaker 2: and all of those outlets were like, it's Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: and that was basically that has changed.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's that's a fair point. And we'll
Speaker 3: talk more about this in the Democrats block. All right,
Speaker 3: let's talk about the economy, shall we, because lots of
Speaker 3: stuff still going on here. Republican senators doing themselves, no favors.
Speaker 3: Senator Tommy Tubberville taking to Fox News saying there's no pain,
Speaker 3: no gain.
Speaker 1: That's his message on the tariffs.
Speaker 8: Let's take a listen, and Trump's tariffs making America great again.
Speaker 8: It's a great strategy if somebody's finally doing something out
Speaker 8: of the White House, President Trump, that is that says
Speaker 8: you have to take an action in another country.
Speaker 9: Yeah, no pain, no gain. That's what we used to
Speaker 9: tell our football players. There's gonna be some pain with tariffs.
Speaker 9: But tariffs got us back as the strongest economy in
Speaker 9: the world when President Trump was in the first time.
Speaker 9: He knows what he's doing. Democrats, get out of the way.
Speaker 9: Shut up. You have no answers. You didn't do anything
Speaker 9: right in the last four years with Joe Biden. We
Speaker 9: have a game plan. Trump has a game plan along
Speaker 9: with Hard Luttnik and you know other people that are
Speaker 9: pushing the tariffs. We can turn this thing around. But folks,
Speaker 9: let me tell you, this is our last chance. If
Speaker 9: we can't get it done now with tariffs and with
Speaker 9: putting and pulling regulations and getting people back to work
Speaker 9: and cutting our debt and cutting the amount of spending,
Speaker 9: we're not going to have the country that we've had before.
Speaker 9: So people need to just listen, learn from this. Understand
Speaker 9: it's short term pain. We're going to get this turned around.
Speaker 9: President Trump knows exactly what he's doing, and he has
Speaker 9: a game plan something Democrats didn't know anything about.
Speaker 1: No pain, no gain.
Speaker 3: These guys have really got to get their stuff together
Speaker 3: because that has never been a historical message that has
Speaker 3: worked politically. Literally ever, you need to instead be talking
Speaker 3: about the gain part and not really talking or emphasizing
Speaker 3: the pain. You're like, we have a serious plan, this
Speaker 3: is what we're doing. These are the number of jobs
Speaker 3: that are going to be coming back. I saw you
Speaker 3: and Emily cover that, Howard Luttning, it was unbelievable. It's
Speaker 3: you know, it's ironic. Two days ago he said there
Speaker 3: won't be a recession, which one is it?
Speaker 2: And then he said, just to remind people, he said
Speaker 2: a recession would be.
Speaker 4: Worth it, worth it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, uh okay.
Speaker 3: Nobody in all of human history in politics has ever
Speaker 3: ever succeeded by running on that. And that is the
Speaker 3: part which is really starting to drive me crazy, is
Speaker 3: that without any serious affirmation plans and you know, actual
Speaker 3: trust with the American people that things are going to
Speaker 3: get better tangibly quickly. We are a consumption based society
Speaker 3: after all, then I don't think that this is going
Speaker 3: to work, and you really actually risk doing a lot
Speaker 3: of damage and reversing a lot of the basically embrace
Speaker 3: of the American people of targeted tariffs. Most people are
Speaker 3: on board with tariffs if you sell them correctly and
Speaker 3: if you tell then explain the benefits as well as
Speaker 3: they're part of a plan. But if you have a
Speaker 3: yo yo strategy and people basically start to believe that
Speaker 3: all tariffs are bad, we're going to end up right
Speaker 3: back to where we are in the first place.
Speaker 1: No, many tariffs are good. I'm extremely supportive to tariff Canada,
Speaker 1: Max Go, China, et cetera.
Speaker 3: The problem is is that they're on, then they're off,
Speaker 3: and then they're off for the auto workers, and then
Speaker 3: now we're here and soon we're going to be giving exemptions,
Speaker 3: and then we're not giving exemptions and people can't pay attention.
Speaker 3: At the same time, their public services are basically remaining flat.
Speaker 3: So now what and then, oh, in your retirement account,
Speaker 3: I think thirty five percent of Americans have four oh
Speaker 3: one K and so their retirement is down. The rest
Speaker 3: of the sixty five percent of Americans are so are
Speaker 3: going to be affected by the stock market basically, whether
Speaker 3: you like it or not, if there's a twenty percent
Speaker 3: So what do we do right now from the all
Speaker 3: time high? I think we're down roughly like eight or
Speaker 3: nine percent. S and P futures while you and I
Speaker 3: are recording is all the games of yesterday are basically
Speaker 3: being a race. So let's say we go down. We're
Speaker 3: roughly down ten. When you're down twenty, you know, not
Speaker 3: only will we pass correction territory, we're going towards recession territory.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be laof so there's no question, you know.
Speaker 3: The only thing that could potentially, I think, save the
Speaker 3: economy right now is the Federal Reserve. They're not meeting
Speaker 3: until May to announce their interest. Two months is a
Speaker 3: long time, and America is not a forgiving nation. It's
Speaker 3: really not with consumption. They will do it if you
Speaker 3: sell them, if you have a plan, et cetera. But
Speaker 3: they if they feel screwed around with and they just
Speaker 3: have less money, that's good. That's not a place to
Speaker 3: engender any sort of confidence in your government. And we're
Speaker 3: starting to see some of this tick down. Now here's
Speaker 3: the same caveat with all these poles.
Speaker 1: It could be fake.
Speaker 3: I have no idea, but there are at least a
Speaker 3: number of polls right now showing Trump's economic approval going down.
Speaker 3: I would only pay attention because traditionally it's been even
Speaker 3: if the polls were fake, even in the fake ones,
Speaker 3: he's usually been doing pretty well.
Speaker 1: Here's what the CNN poll had to say.
Speaker 10: Donald Trump's current approval reading according to our brand new
Speaker 10: CNM poll conducted by SSRs, is forty five percent. His
Speaker 10: disapproval Sarah is at fifty four percent. He's clearly upside
Speaker 10: down underwater any expression you want to use to say
Speaker 10: this is not where any president would want to be.
Speaker 10: And if you look though over time, that forty five
Speaker 10: percent number, that was actually his high water mark in
Speaker 10: all of CNN's polling throughout his first administration. So if
Speaker 10: you look at the issue set overall, how is he
Speaker 10: handling the whole host of issues that we tested. There
Speaker 10: are some issues he scores quite high on fifty one
Speaker 10: percent approove of his handling of immigration, But you ask
Speaker 10: the key question the economy.
Speaker 1: It is by far.
Speaker 10: Issue number one for voters. Nothing really comes close overall
Speaker 10: for Americans, And on that score, he's actually performing a
Speaker 10: tick below his overall approval rating forty four percent approve
Speaker 10: of his handling of the economy. You see that they're
Speaker 10: below his job overall there the economy forty four percent,
Speaker 10: fifty six percent Sarah disapproved. He is minus twelve percentage
Speaker 10: points on the issue that Americans say is the most important.
Speaker 1: So everybody take that for what you will.
Speaker 3: The point is is that even our friend Logan of
Speaker 3: Logan Phillips embraced the White House. He pointed this out.
Speaker 3: Let's put it up there on the screen. You know,
Speaker 3: you currently have a shift from approval. That disapproval dropped
Speaker 3: an average of five point three percent across eight separate
Speaker 3: polls in the Trump overall net approval rating, and all
Speaker 3: of this, you know, generally tied to I think the economy,
Speaker 3: and you really have to be certain that what you're
Speaker 3: doing is going to produce a good outcome and that
Speaker 3: people are going to be with you throughout that period.
Speaker 3: And the White House right now is coasting off of
Speaker 3: being new. We see this in Caroline Levitt's comments. Actually
Speaker 3: that's what she told me right whenever I asked about
Speaker 3: the stock market. But somebody over there actually asked a
Speaker 3: great question, so like, how much longer are you going
Speaker 3: to blame Biden?
Speaker 1: Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 2: How does the White House measure this in terms of
Speaker 2: when can you not blame it on former President Biden?
Speaker 4: And what does it fully become President Trump's responsibility.
Speaker 11: Well, we've only been here for fifty two days, but
Speaker 11: certainly the President is working hard every day to again
Speaker 11: bring down the cost of living, which we see is
Speaker 11: already happening. You see, the cost of eggs is going down,
Speaker 11: cost of gasoline is going down because of the massive
Speaker 11: deregulatory efforts of this president and also the fact that
Speaker 11: we are delivering on his promise to drill, baby drill already.
Speaker 11: You saw this past weekend the National Economic Advisory put
Speaker 11: out a report that because of the regulations, we've already
Speaker 11: slashed in just fifty two days, we've saved American taxpayers
Speaker 11: one hundred and eighty billion dollars. That comes out to
Speaker 11: about two thousand dollars per American household.
Speaker 6: That's in fifty two days.
Speaker 11: So the President is working diligently, and he's working hard
Speaker 11: on this every single day. And we need Congress to
Speaker 11: also help. We need Congress to pass a tax cuts,
Speaker 11: which the President campaigned on in the vast majority of
Speaker 11: the American people's support.
Speaker 1: So there you go.
Speaker 3: She's like, well, we've only been here for fifty two days. Look,
Speaker 3: America will give you runway. That's when I want people
Speaker 3: to remember. Trump is not sunk. He's not done. There's
Speaker 3: none of that whatsoever. You still got a long way
Speaker 3: to go. We're only fifty three days or whatever into
Speaker 3: the administration. However, and I'll go back to the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: He started at a seventy something approval rating. It took
Speaker 3: him nine months to go underwater. Trump is the most
Speaker 3: divisive probably in modern American politics, So started off a
Speaker 3: little bit lower, but the economy was a huge strength
Speaker 3: of his always the whole like, oh wish I had
Speaker 3: mean tweets right now or whatever, and seniors the people
Speaker 3: who vote more than anybody are also the people with
Speaker 3: the most assets are going to be paying the most
Speaker 3: attention to the stock market. So there's a lot of
Speaker 3: political built in preparel for the Trump administration right now,
Speaker 3: and I don't know. I really wonder how much of
Speaker 3: it is bluster, how much of it is real. And
Speaker 3: I actually think the worst possible outcome would be maximalist
Speaker 3: tariff strategy for the first three months stock market correction
Speaker 3: and then are reversal, because then you wouldn't even have
Speaker 3: any of the new jobs as a result of the tariffs.
Speaker 3: You would have just the pain and then caving to
Speaker 3: the business community after a couple of months, which and
Speaker 3: then also the public, as I said earlier, would nuke
Speaker 3: its approval of tariffs. Would like, no, tariffs are good
Speaker 3: and necessary. But I don't know, I'm worried. I'm worried
Speaker 3: that about not only the strategy, but I could see
Speaker 3: people pulling away if we get to twenty and thirty
Speaker 3: percent correction territory. I mean, nobody in America has experienced
Speaker 3: thirty percent or whatever.
Speaker 1: In a long time.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I saw some people posting Warren Buffett's Letter to America
Speaker 3: the other day. He wrote this in two thousand and
Speaker 3: eight about why I.
Speaker 1: Was, like, guys, the market's only down ten percent.
Speaker 3: He wrote that when the market was down fifty percent,
Speaker 3: So none of us have been there. I have a
Speaker 3: lot more respect for my dad now after living through
Speaker 3: this and how he white knuckled it all the way
Speaker 3: through the Great Recession.
Speaker 1: So it's none of us have had to live through
Speaker 1: that yet. Hopefully we don't, but.
Speaker 3: That can cause all kinds of crazy political problems at
Speaker 3: that time if we get.
Speaker 2: To that, no doubt about it, and you know, you
Speaker 2: might be surprised to learn, but I share a concern
Speaker 2: that this is going to just completely negative, negatively polarize
Speaker 2: people against any tariffs whatsoever. He's giving to tariff policy
Speaker 2: a terrible name right now because it's done in such
Speaker 2: a chaotic, haphazard across the board, non targeted, no story
Speaker 2: about why we're doing this and what the benefits are,
Speaker 2: or the story changes every day, et cetera. And as
Speaker 2: you guys know, like I supported his tariffs that he
Speaker 2: put in the first I supported the Biden terriffs which
Speaker 2: were paired with industrial policy, which did have positive benefits
Speaker 2: and helped to reshore some manufacturing, like you know, and
Speaker 2: we're targeted at particular industries, Like there are instances where
Speaker 2: tariffs make a lot of sense, but the way that
Speaker 2: this is going, it's a total incomplete disaster. And we
Speaker 2: showed yesterday Emily and I the word cloud from jail partners.
Speaker 2: They ask people like, what is Trump's biggest mess up?
Speaker 2: And maybe you guys can throw it up in post
Speaker 2: and add it into the segment. But tariffs was number one,
Speaker 2: front and center, and then it was like tariff's misspelled
Speaker 2: different ways, and then the number two was all different
Speaker 2: sorts of things regarding elon, Doge, federal firing, government, So
Speaker 2: like all of those are really core sort of economic
Speaker 2: pieces and for Trump to have at the core of
Speaker 2: his administration discontent like that really is the story of
Speaker 2: his administration right now. Discontent around his economic moves. That
Speaker 2: is something that is definitely new and different ultimately from
Speaker 2: the first term. I do want to say though, they
Speaker 2: did get some good news. Now there's another inflation report
Speaker 2: that is set to come out maybe today or tomorrow,
Speaker 2: and we'll see what that one says as well. But
Speaker 2: we could put this up on the screen, inflation cooled
Speaker 2: somewhat more than expected. In February two point eight percent.
Speaker 2: Core reading also eased, but looming tariffs, they say, may
Speaker 2: keep consumer prices rising. So consumer prices were up two
Speaker 2: point eight percent in February from a year earlier. That's
Speaker 2: according to a Labor Department report, versus a January gain
Speaker 2: of three percent. Economists pulled by the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: and expected a two point nine percent gain, so it
Speaker 2: came in a little bit better than expected. Prices excluding
Speaker 2: food and energy categories is so called core measure that
Speaker 2: economists watched an effort to better capture inflation's underlying trend
Speaker 2: because food is more volatile, rose three point one percent.
Speaker 2: That was the lowest year over year reading since twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one, also lower than the three point two percent
Speaker 2: expected by a cop So when you heard Caroline Levitt,
Speaker 2: they're saying that, oh, egg prices are down and inflation
Speaker 2: is cooling and lowest ratings since twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Whatever.
Speaker 4: This is what she is referring to.
Speaker 2: One of the theories of what they're doing where it
Speaker 2: really feels like they're manufacturing a stock market crash and
Speaker 2: manufacturing effectively a recession, is that that is an effort
Speaker 2: to crush demand, which means crushing your like you know, wages,
Speaker 2: an ability ability to spend in order to get inflation
Speaker 2: under control. And so you know, that is one theory
Speaker 2: for what is going on out there, which you know,
Speaker 2: if your goal to get inflation down is basically to
Speaker 2: like screw over regular people, I don't think that's something
Speaker 2: that people should support, even if it does have the
Speaker 2: impact here of cutting inflation. But I'm not trying to like,
Speaker 2: you know, sandbag them on this like it's good and
Speaker 2: inflation coming down like it's good, it's a good piece
Speaker 2: of news for them, et cetera. But just putting in
Speaker 2: that broader picture of what one of the theories about
Speaker 2: what the hell they're.
Speaker 3: Up to here is no one knows. Let's put the
Speaker 3: next one up there. Egg prices, by the way, have
Speaker 3: started to fall, so that's good. They Fortune Magazine was
Speaker 3: saying it could be just for a little while. This
Speaker 3: is actually mostly as a result of like the wild
Speaker 3: swings in the bird population and in bird flu control,
Speaker 3: but also it possibly hopefully could be a result also
Speaker 3: of the administration announcing an investigation into those egg producers, right,
Speaker 3: because you know, this is part of my issue as well,
Speaker 3: goes back to the Biden administration. I'm not really sure
Speaker 3: why they are. I'm not really sure why they're not
Speaker 3: talking more about these.
Speaker 1: Types of initiatives.
Speaker 3: I mean, I have a suspicion, which is that it's
Speaker 3: very you know, anti big business. I mean, don't necessarily
Speaker 3: want to be tagged that way. And I would say, okay, great,
Speaker 3: you know, big business or whatever is not the be
Speaker 3: all end all of.
Speaker 1: The US economy.
Speaker 3: It's a good thing to factor a daily staple like this,
Speaker 3: and the price is going to continue to go down,
Speaker 3: which you try and do more of that across the board.
Speaker 3: So interesting also political judgment there by the White House.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I mean, like you said, I'm rooting for
Speaker 3: inflation to go down no matter what. I'm especially rooting
Speaker 3: for inflation in the most important places in American life
Speaker 3: to go down, like in housing, and especially hoping that
Speaker 3: these interest rates go down so that people can get
Speaker 3: more affordable mortgages. But things are not good right now,
Speaker 3: no matter what, and the White House has got to
Speaker 3: play very very close attention otherwise they're in big trouble
Speaker 3: and they'll end up with high tariffs, high inflation, high unemployment,
Speaker 3: and high interest rates.
Speaker 1: What a shit situation that would.
Speaker 2: Stag Stagflation is definitely one possibility that is on the table.
Speaker 2: And the other thing to note about this report is
Speaker 2: it really comes in it's reflecting data from before any
Speaker 2: of the tariffs were put on, too, so we don't
Speaker 2: really have any indication yet you know what that might
Speaker 2: have done, what impact that might have had on prices.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get over to dose.
Speaker 3: This is you know, funny depressing, depending which way you
Speaker 3: want to look at it. Let's go and put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen. So for all the talk
Speaker 3: of cutting federal spending, of budgets, of America going bankrupt,
Speaker 3: et cetera, new you know report from the Treasury Department,
Speaker 3: keep that in mind, from the actual Department of the Treasury,
Speaker 3: not from everybody else, shows that US federal spending actually
Speaker 3: rose to a record of six hundred and three billion
Speaker 3: just last month, despite you know, any claims of what
Speaker 3: is it one hundred billion or so in savings? Remember that,
Speaker 3: what's the word? You were an accountant, right, it's more time?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 1: But I what am I looking for?
Speaker 3: Like that word about like taking spending and putting it
Speaker 3: over a period of time. I think it's a yeah,
Speaker 3: it's camortized, okay, despite like this is always when people
Speaker 3: like we're cutting ten trillion dollars in spending, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's theoretical spending over ten years.
Speaker 1: Man, Like, how much are you actually cutting right now?
Speaker 3: So they have claimed one hundred billion dollars of savings quote,
Speaker 3: but only a handful of departments have registered any drops
Speaker 3: and spending. In the first full month of the administration,
Speaker 3: spending actually rose by forty billion compared with the same
Speaker 3: month just last year on a like for like basis,
Speaker 3: which is a seven percent increase and month over month data.
Speaker 3: They have actually shown a few large categories that have
Speaker 3: achieved some decrease. The Department of Education had cut out
Speaker 3: goings by about six billion, so that means that those
Speaker 3: were made up for elsewhere. Jessica Rydell, who is an
Speaker 3: economic expert at the Manhattan Institute, was quoted here saying
Speaker 3: those savings are so small as to not be identifiable
Speaker 3: in monthly spending totals and continuing whenever you're down here
Speaker 3: is the monthly outlay, for example, on Usaid was some
Speaker 3: two hundred and twenty six million compared with five hundred
Speaker 3: and forty seven million in the same month. But that's
Speaker 3: what I kept trying to say even during that whole
Speaker 3: USAID fight is I was like, hey, guys, this is
Speaker 3: point two percent of the federal budget, right, and it's like, well,
Speaker 3: if we look at where a lot of the payment
Speaker 3: and the spending and all of that is going, it's
Speaker 3: on stuff that no one's even thinking about cutting, defense budget, entitlements,
Speaker 3: and debt servicing.
Speaker 1: All three of those.
Speaker 3: Arguably, interest rates have cost America more than anything else
Speaker 3: because it increases the amount that we have to pay
Speaker 3: to service our debt. That alone, apparently are debt servicing
Speaker 3: is more than all federal tax revenue that they took
Speaker 3: in just last year. So what are we doing here?
Speaker 3: If you know, in the idea of federal you know,
Speaker 3: employees or whatever, it's just a drop in the bucket. Like,
Speaker 3: if you really want to change things, fine, you know,
Speaker 3: let's have that conversation. I'd be happy to, but yeah,
Speaker 3: nobody seems particularly interested.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, some of the discourse I've seen
Speaker 2: online about this is like, okay, so which is it
Speaker 2: is Elon like you know, messing everything up or is
Speaker 2: he doing nothing at all? And what you're pointing to
Speaker 2: helps the square the circle. If you eliminated every single
Speaker 2: civilian federal government employee, all of them, it's four point
Speaker 2: three percent of the budget. The things that Key has
Speaker 2: targeted USAID. We're talking about a budget in the millions. Well, meanwhile,
Speaker 2: you're planning an extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
Speaker 2: you know, tax cut for the rich in corporations four
Speaker 2: point six trillion. Okay, So it is very possible to
Speaker 2: you know, slash government workers and make it so old
Speaker 2: people can't call the Social Security lines anymore and there's
Speaker 2: huge lines and hours you know to get service, and
Speaker 2: to completely dismantle USAIG, cut the Department of Education by half,
Speaker 2: cut NIH funding by a significant amount, and do a
Speaker 2: lot of real damage while saving comparatively pennies in comparison
Speaker 2: to the federal government budget. And that is effectively what
Speaker 2: is going on here, because again they haven't touched the pentagon.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the place where you would really want
Speaker 2: to cut. And you know, I don't want them to
Speaker 2: touch Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Speaker 1: But if you.
Speaker 2: Aren't doing you know, significant significant cuts in those areas,
Speaker 2: then you're going to see the numbers continue to go up.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just where you are, and it's very hot.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can't take seriously anyway their claims of
Speaker 2: grave concern about the debt and the deficit when they
Speaker 2: are planning these massive tax cut giveaways to people who
Speaker 2: really don't need it, and also, by the way, planning
Speaker 2: on increasing defense spending, et cetera. So you know, I
Speaker 2: have always said it's really important to not take it
Speaker 2: face value. The claim that doge is about saving money.
Speaker 2: Doge is a power play. That's what it is for
Speaker 2: Elon and also for you know, people who are ideological
Speaker 2: libertarian libertarians or anarcho capitalists who are just opposed to government,
Speaker 2: don't want government to have power, see government as like
Speaker 2: a rival power center to the conservative movement, people like
Speaker 2: Russ Vote, who is a real, you know, sort of
Speaker 2: ideological stalwart in this direction. It's not really about saving
Speaker 2: money for Elon. It's about making sure these agencies can't
Speaker 2: stay in the way of standing the way of his companies,
Speaker 2: especially targeting the ones that have irritated him the most,
Speaker 2: you know, the FAA and other places, making sure that
Speaker 2: he has his hand on the tiller so that he
Speaker 2: can you know, whether it's feeding data into his AI system,
Speaker 2: or whether it's potentially you know, getting shuffling contracts into
Speaker 2: his companies, which you we've already seen him do in
Speaker 2: certain instances. And it's also for others an ideological project
Speaker 2: of just like how do I tear the government down
Speaker 2: and make sure that it can't work, can't deliver for people.
Speaker 2: So you know, it's sold because as popular as efficiency,
Speaker 2: as cutting out waste, as reducing the debt and the deficit,
Speaker 2: but that isn't really the core of the ideological goal.
Speaker 2: One other things I wanted to get your thoughts on this, Sagar.
Speaker 2: So I was thinking about the areas, like you name,
Speaker 2: the places where they actually spending went down, like they've
Speaker 2: made the most severe cuts, and Usaid, Department of Education
Speaker 2: CFPB are kind of top of that list, all of
Speaker 2: which again have comparatively small budgets, you know when you
Speaker 2: look at the grand scheme of the federal government. But
Speaker 2: those are three areas where the like RUSS Vote Project
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five conservative movement, where they had a plan
Speaker 2: to dismantle them. And so I feel like the places
Speaker 2: where they have been able to move the most aggressively
Speaker 2: and the most radically are actually the places that russ
Speaker 2: Vote was most interested in target.
Speaker 3: It's that the herriage found a sho and all of
Speaker 3: them have hated the Department of Education for years. There's
Speaker 3: been almost a fifteen year project against the CFPB usaidea
Speaker 3: as well has.
Speaker 1: Been a long time target.
Speaker 3: No, you're not wrong, which is that these are long
Speaker 3: time targets of the federal government. I mean, do you
Speaker 3: remember Rick Perry's famous debate moment on the stage where
Speaker 3: he forgot the three departments that he wanted.
Speaker 1: It's like these are long standing He was like, oh,
Speaker 1: can't think of the third one. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Later on, by the way, his excuse was he was
Speaker 3: on painkillers, which is an insane Okay, but you shouldn't
Speaker 3: admit that, dude.
Speaker 1: It's better to just say you're.
Speaker 4: Being stupid back issues or whatever.
Speaker 1: Oh, it was actually highest on painkillers at the time.
Speaker 4: Okay, god, right is bold, But.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just saying, you know, there is a picture
Speaker 2: that's starting to emerge of the dose people sort of
Speaker 2: running through these agencies, you know, getting access to these
Speaker 2: sensitive databases, causing a lot of trouble and tumults, and
Speaker 2: you know, like at the Social Security administration. Certainly they're
Speaker 2: slashing which is another long time conservative target, but slashing
Speaker 2: the number of people the floating all these crazy ideas
Speaker 2: for so, oh my god, there's all this fraud O way,
Speaker 2: it turns out that those dead people aren't getting the funds,
Speaker 2: Maybe we can cut the telephone service. They're just sort
Speaker 2: of running rampant on this like chaos train. And the
Speaker 2: things that are really aggressively moving are things that were
Speaker 2: sort of lined up through Project twenty twenty five and
Speaker 2: where there was an existing, longstanding conservative priority and plan
Speaker 2: of how they wanted to go about doing it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: I think it's just that those really look politically, these
Speaker 3: are obviously the easiest ones to cut. It's just that
Speaker 3: now you have to deal with real stuff, and it's
Speaker 3: also a lot more complicated. So I'm just not sure.
Speaker 3: I'm not ready to buy all that much into it.
Speaker 3: But this is actually another reason why they're flirting a
Speaker 3: little bit with problems, is that you have incited you
Speaker 3: both will not actually decrease federal spending, but you will
Speaker 3: also have launched like this grand program against it. And
Speaker 3: so if any because I've seen people who are real
Speaker 3: They're like serious dozers, is the way I would describe it.
Speaker 3: They're like people who have genuinely, for decades wanted to
Speaker 3: massively cut the size of the government. They're like, hey, guys,
Speaker 3: just at the same point I made on tariffs. If
Speaker 3: you don't do this properly, no American the American people
Speaker 3: are not going to trust any future effort to seriously
Speaker 3: want to reform the government.
Speaker 1: I was like, hey, you know what, that's actually kind
Speaker 1: of a good point. You really have.
Speaker 3: You could nuke a lot of public trust in that
Speaker 3: and make it so that hanging and keeping around dead
Speaker 3: weight in the future becomes a more politically popular decision.
Speaker 3: You found this of a teletown hall survey where and
Speaker 3: look people who call in the town halls and participating
Speaker 3: in this These are point there is ze point one
Speaker 3: percent of the most politically activated. So just remember who
Speaker 3: exactly we're dealing with. But it's still important because those
Speaker 3: are the type people who show up and vote. He
Speaker 3: was doing a teletown hall did a pull of people
Speaker 3: who support or oppose DOGE, and the results were pretty astonishing.
Speaker 3: This is Republican Tom Barrett from Michigan. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: We'll go ahead and move on to our second whole question,
Speaker 12: and that question is do you approve of the Department
Speaker 12: of Government Efficiencies Mission to streamline the federal government and
Speaker 12: reduce spending? Again, this question is regarding DOGE do you
Speaker 12: approve of the Department of Government Efficiencies mission to streamline
Speaker 12: the federal government and reduce spending? Press one for yes
Speaker 12: and press two for no. Again, that's one for yes
Speaker 12: and two for no. Our results are coming in and
Speaker 12: it's an at seventy percent for no and thirty percent
Speaker 12: for yes. That's seventy percent for no. It's thirty percent.
Speaker 3: For yes, seventy percent for no. So yeah, that's a
Speaker 3: little bit of an issue there. Again, let's keep it so.
Speaker 3: Do we have his district?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just lift it up.
Speaker 2: You see, this was Alyssa Slotkin's old district. It's a
Speaker 2: swing district. So he won it pretty narrowly fifty point
Speaker 2: three percent sound of the vote. His opponent got forty
Speaker 2: six point six and there's a libertarian who took the
Speaker 2: remainder of the vote. So you're talking about a swing
Speaker 2: district in Michigan. Obviously, you know that's important data point.
Speaker 2: I mean, no, one is saying this teletown hall is like,
Speaker 2: you know, a scientific poll or anything. But the other
Speaker 2: thing that's funny is I was saying to you there
Speaker 2: was that edict that went out from the head of
Speaker 2: the NRCC. I can't remember the dude's name, but McCormick
Speaker 2: maybe something like that. Anyway, he was like, don't do
Speaker 2: in person town halls, Like, if you're going to do
Speaker 2: a town hall, do a teletown hall because it makes
Speaker 2: it much easier. You can control who gets to ask questions.
Speaker 2: You don't have the specter of the crowd with signs
Speaker 2: and like yelling at you and whatever.
Speaker 4: And so he's taking that advice.
Speaker 2: Of like, I'm not going to see these people in person,
Speaker 2: but I'll do my teletown hall. And even within the
Speaker 2: context of that as getting you know, a clip that
Speaker 2: gets played on shows like ours and passed around, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So it is it is kind of interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are people are people are very activated
Speaker 2: and very concerned about this, and the impacts show up
Speaker 2: in more places than you would expect.
Speaker 4: We've talked about the federal parks.
Speaker 2: You know that the national parks that are important to
Speaker 2: people and important to economies as well, and again, let's
Speaker 2: say you cut ten park rangers that are like critical
Speaker 2: to the operation of that park. How much money did you, say,
Speaker 2: a pitdling amount. But the impact is really devastating to
Speaker 2: that area because the park can no longer function. You've
Speaker 2: got long lines to get in, you don't have people
Speaker 2: who are able to maintain it, or like there was
Speaker 2: an issue with like people getting locked in the bathroom,
Speaker 2: there's no one there to help them, et cetera. Some
Speaker 2: places had to stop taking reservations altogether because they were
Speaker 2: already short staffed, and then further cuts came and they
Speaker 2: just really could no longer function. So it put C
Speaker 2: three up on the screen because this was some inside
Speaker 2: details about the Social Security Administration and the back and
Speaker 2: forth there, and this is what I was talking about
Speaker 2: a little bit the Washington Post hairsheet about how the
Speaker 2: doche people went in and initially they were like, oh
Speaker 2: my god, we found all that. Look at all these
Speaker 2: people who are three hundred years old who are in
Speaker 2: the system, Like, holy cow, we've found billions of dollars
Speaker 2: in fraud here. And then the career people were like, well,
Speaker 2: actually that's not what's going on. Those are just all
Speaker 2: the names of people who have ever gotten Social Security,
Speaker 2: and we're aware they're in there and their birth dates
Speaker 2: aren't correct, but they're marked, so they're not getting paid.
Speaker 2: And by the way, we did an investigation to see
Speaker 2: whether we should clean them out of the database, but
Speaker 2: it came back it was going to cost millions of
Speaker 2: dollars and it doesn't really cause a problem, so we
Speaker 2: just left them in there so the career people are
Speaker 2: able to explain to them. Of course, the President Elan
Speaker 2: are still running around making this case because it enables
Speaker 2: them potentially to make the case down the road that like, oh,
Speaker 2: we're cutting soci Security, but it's just fraud, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And so once they were the doge people inside of
Speaker 2: Social Security, we're convinced that, okay, it's this dead people
Speaker 2: thing is not real, Like this is a kind of
Speaker 2: a dead end for us to pursue. Then they were like,
Speaker 2: how about we cut the phone service so that old
Speaker 2: people can no longer and disabled people and you know,
Speaker 2: whoever needs to call in and you know, ask a
Speaker 2: question about Social Security, et cetera, so that they either
Speaker 2: have to go in person, which, by the way, some
Speaker 2: of those offices are being cut and shuttered as well,
Speaker 2: or they have to file it online. Do you have
Speaker 2: elderly relatives, parents, whatever? Like, do you know how sometimes
Speaker 2: they need to talk to someone on the phone and
Speaker 2: they struggle to fill out some paperwork or figure out
Speaker 2: how to navigate online, like it's kind of an important service.
Speaker 2: So they were going in that direction again, the career
Speaker 2: staff came in and were like, you know, that's really
Speaker 2: not a great idea, Like this isn't going to work
Speaker 2: out well, et cetera. So now they've paired back again
Speaker 2: to what they're going to do is just cut your
Speaker 2: ability to change your direct deposit information via the telephone.
Speaker 2: So that's what they've landed on. But you know, I
Speaker 2: mean all of this like internal tumult cutting the staff
Speaker 2: at the Social Security Administration, which already was reportedly sort
Speaker 2: of like short staffed, trying to strip down. Now you're
Speaker 2: talking about services that allow people to get enrolled. Already,
Speaker 2: the phone wait times have spiked already, the wait times
Speaker 2: that these offices have spiked, et cetera. And you just
Speaker 2: get a like, you know, these people don't really know
Speaker 2: what they're doing, and they're just sort of like rooting
Speaker 2: around and making it up as they go.
Speaker 3: So I know this is going to be tremendously unpopular,
Speaker 3: but should we really coddle old people by just keeping
Speaker 3: phone service around?
Speaker 1: Of course, I don't know. I'm just talking about it.
Speaker 1: It bothers me.
Speaker 3: It's like when you go to a parking garage and
Speaker 3: they have an attendant there even though there's like a
Speaker 3: button there to press, and you're like, why are you
Speaker 3: even here?
Speaker 4: Like sorry, because you can't figure online?
Speaker 3: I have in American old people that they have the
Speaker 3: IQ to figure it out about how to enter your
Speaker 3: data online? Aren't they being a little bit like stubborn
Speaker 3: by demanding that we pay a bunch of people. How
Speaker 3: hard to check your routing number on your computer and
Speaker 3: your phone?
Speaker 1: Okay, no, it's right there.
Speaker 4: You a really worked with the elderly.
Speaker 2: You're talking about disabled people like having off because here's
Speaker 2: the thing too, is like people can oh, the government
Speaker 2: doesn't work and it's so hard to navigain, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: well we have the service that makes it easier for
Speaker 2: people to nab games like not, let's cut that. Let's
Speaker 2: make it more difficult for people to be able to
Speaker 2: get the you know, social Security payments and access to
Speaker 2: the system that they have themselves paid into.
Speaker 1: This is why I'm not going.
Speaker 3: To get elected because I just think that it's not
Speaker 3: that only.
Speaker 2: I mean that's the amount that this cost is like nothing.
Speaker 2: It's you know, in the content grands certain things and
Speaker 2: it makes life that this is the most popular program
Speaker 2: that ever existed in our country, most successful social safety
Speaker 2: net program in the world. Like, yes, I think people
Speaker 2: should have as easy access to it as possible.
Speaker 1: Just I mean, but how long does this continue? It's like,
Speaker 1: do we have to wait until forever? Why not? So
Speaker 1: we always have.
Speaker 3: To have phones ridiculous with ninety percent of people have
Speaker 3: a cell phone with five G data on it, Like
Speaker 3: it's it's not difficult.
Speaker 1: Especially with iPhone call. They even have boomer mode on
Speaker 1: the iPhone.
Speaker 3: You can have your text as big as possible, and
Speaker 3: they make it easy.
Speaker 1: To go out disabled. I'll absolutely give you one. That's fine.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, there's there's something about it that
Speaker 3: bothers me a little bit where we just tend to
Speaker 3: it's it's like that least common denominator thing where the
Speaker 3: you know, it's been the scene to liab concept where
Speaker 3: if you have one person who's disagreeable in a group
Speaker 3: of like one hundred, then the group of ninety nine
Speaker 3: will generally go with that. It's like, do we really
Speaker 3: need to have like all of these government services for
Speaker 3: people who just refuse to use the internet. I don't know,
Speaker 3: it just makes me a little bit skeptical of that,
Speaker 3: not saying that what I'm saying is popular at all.
Speaker 4: I don't know, how do you think?
Speaker 2: Like, think about Joe Biden coignitive decline and now imagine
Speaker 2: a legion of Joe Biden's I mean, listen, memory loss
Speaker 2: and like confus like these are this happens as you
Speaker 2: get older, and so yes, I think to make it
Speaker 2: as easy as possible for people to be able to
Speaker 2: access the benefits that they have earned and deserved is
Speaker 2: like the bare minimum of what we should expect from
Speaker 2: our government.
Speaker 1: Call me ablest agist or whatever. I don't know. It
Speaker 1: just makes me. It just it makes me uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: I'm like, how much do we really have to sit
Speaker 3: here and cater to all of them? I'm sure all
Speaker 3: my younger folks or whatever who are out there who've
Speaker 3: had to ever deal with disagreeable old people or in
Speaker 3: an office space or something can agree with me. But anyway,
Speaker 3: to your point about Doze not sending their best, this
Speaker 3: is a hilarious segment that CNN found. One of these
Speaker 3: DOGE workers has been doing these get ready with me
Speaker 3: posts on Instagram, working as an influencer, actually in her
Speaker 3: government office, posting some of her outfits in like cutesy
Speaker 3: little poses. So let's take a listen, and if you're
Speaker 3: able to watch.
Speaker 1: I do recommend that you watch this one. Let's take
Speaker 1: a lesson.
Speaker 13: It looks just like any other influencer video, a young
Speaker 13: woman posing in front of a camera, over and over
Speaker 13: and over again, showing off her trendy but timeless professional fashion.
Speaker 7: But she's no.
Speaker 13: Ordinary influencer, and that's no ordinary office. Her name is
Speaker 13: McLaurin Pinover, and she's a Trump administration's new director of
Speaker 13: Communications for the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, which
Speaker 13: manages federal employees. All of these videos were shot in
Speaker 13: her government office right here at OPM headquarters in Washington, DC,
Speaker 13: ground zero for Trump's plan to cut thousands of workers
Speaker 13: from the federal government in the name of efficiency. Inside
Speaker 13: her office, Pinover captures video at her desk putting on
Speaker 13: makeup modeling new outfits to her eight hundred followers, pinover
Speaker 13: markets clothes.
Speaker 1: On her account.
Speaker 13: Using what's called affiliate links, she could get a portion
Speaker 13: of any item sold through her Instagram page, like this
Speaker 13: four hundred and seventy five dollars skirt or three hundred
Speaker 13: dollars dress, but it's unclear whether she's made any money.
Speaker 13: On February thirteenth, the day twenty people on her communications
Speaker 13: team lost their jobs, she posted a moment for mixed patterns,
Speaker 13: and the week when her agency demanded all federal employees
Speaker 13: list five things they did that week, she posted the
Speaker 13: business Woman special.
Speaker 1: Not a great look, Okay.
Speaker 2: The most ability humiliating part is that you only had
Speaker 2: eight hundred followers.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean that's a lot of work to be putting
Speaker 3: in for eight hundred followers. Like you said, two of
Speaker 3: those affiliate lens. It's like, you know, you'd be lucky
Speaker 3: if you get one or two people to click on
Speaker 3: something like that. Anyway, the more the more that you
Speaker 3: say you're gonna see stuff like that, I think it's
Speaker 3: gonna be a problem.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's a problem.
Speaker 12: Yes,