Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty and he Armstrong and Getty strong Man.
Speaker 2: So we'll set this up ahead of time so you
Speaker 2: can fully enjoy the President of the United States, who
Speaker 2: in one minute claims he was a professor at u
Speaker 2: penn which he never was. It's one of his stories
Speaker 2: he regularly tells.
Speaker 1: Claims he taught a constitutional law class on the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: which he did not, says that you couldn't own a
Speaker 1: cannon when the Second Amendment was first round, which you could,
Speaker 1: and ends by failing to say the famous phrase the
Speaker 1: tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.
Speaker 3: Enjoy.
Speaker 4: I used to be at Love when I was no
Speaker 4: longer the Vice president. I became a professor at the
Speaker 4: University of Pennsylvania before me and I taught a constitutional
Speaker 4: law class. And so I'll talked to some Second Amendment.
Speaker 4: There's never been a time that says you can own
Speaker 4: anything you want. They never you couldn't own a canyon during.
Speaker 1: The Civil War. Yeah, expect to think about it.
Speaker 3: How much do you hear this.
Speaker 4: Phrase the blood of liberty, wash of gough, give me
Speaker 4: a break.
Speaker 1: Oh, I made seriously.
Speaker 4: And by the way, if they want to think is
Speaker 4: to take on government if we get out of line,
Speaker 4: which they're talking on again about, well guess what they
Speaker 4: need at fifteen's They don't need is a rifle.
Speaker 1: Folks.
Speaker 4: Look, this is crazy what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Wow. So that was the president YadA YadA, YadA, ing
Speaker 1: one of the more famous Thomas Jefferson phrases about the
Speaker 1: tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to
Speaker 1: time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, the blood
Speaker 1: of and laughing about the idea of uh people being
Speaker 1: able to rise up against their government, which is an
Speaker 1: interesting notion. But and then you know that's after So
Speaker 1: that's just the that's the message there he starts with
Speaker 1: the whole I was a professor upan, No, you weren't.
Speaker 1: I taught constitutional law. No, go to the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: You don't need to go to Fox, your own favorite blue,
Speaker 1: wacky lefty newspaper. The Washington Post has debunked those, mister presidents,
Speaker 1: So stop saying it. Boy, that was that was an
Speaker 1: amazing density of falsehoods per minute. Yeah, but unlike you
Speaker 1: know Trump, who exaggerates wildly and says also crazy. Of course, Biden,
Speaker 1: there was just making up a biography. It's easily checked
Speaker 1: and has been checked repeatedly. Well, he's senile, you know.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna read this real quick. And then Charlie Cook,
Speaker 1: the fabulous Charlie Cook at the National Review wrote a
Speaker 1: great piecing hit with a part of but Dave writes,
Speaker 1: my mother is ninety three and suffers from dementia. She
Speaker 1: was good until about a year ago, and then her
Speaker 1: mental and physical health took a precipitous drop over the
Speaker 1: last six months. Can't remember anything, rambles, aimlessly, loses track
Speaker 1: where she is, repeats herself, talks about things from her
Speaker 1: younger days that may or may not have happened. Sound familiar. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's eerie and frightening to watch the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world dwindle in the same way. Frankly, I don't
Speaker 1: think he'll make it to election day, and Dave, I
Speaker 1: think you're probably right. I still maintain that it's going
Speaker 1: to become so obvious that he's incapable of executing the
Speaker 1: office between now and the Democratic Convention in August. I
Speaker 1: don't think he'll be the candidate. But I realize that's
Speaker 1: kind of a long shot opinion. But yeah, mostly because
Speaker 1: people can't picture and people close to Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: the people around him can't picture the mechanism for that.
Speaker 1: Like Mark Alpern wrote the other day, if Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has some secret plan, he hasn't told anybody because none
Speaker 1: of the people around him know.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think like I say, I think events and
Speaker 1: perceptions will force everyone's hand. But we'll see, we'll all
Speaker 1: find out together. So Charlie Cook for the National Review
Speaker 1: right that it's now by near universe. It is by
Speaker 1: now near universally acknowledged that Joe Biden is too old
Speaker 1: to perform his duties. It is less universally acknowledged that
Speaker 1: this has serious implications, which is what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: the chief among which is that, for all of the
Speaker 1: pageantry that attends his re election campaign, Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: not in fact running to be the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. And he says, now, this is not a conspiracy.
Speaker 1: He won, he's currently serving, he's eligible to on again, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: He says, instead, I mean that Biden is operating as
Speaker 1: a stand in a widget or a mcguffin whose primary
Speaker 1: purpose is to make it to November fifth of this
Speaker 1: year without expiring. Most candidates have plans for their coveted
Speaker 1: four years. Biden has none. He does not expect to
Speaker 1: be there in the public agrees with his hunch. He
Speaker 1: points out that this is that it's not normal, and
Speaker 1: then a whopping eighty six percent of Americans now believe
Speaker 1: Biden is too old to be president. And then he
Speaker 1: also points out, and this is clearly true, inevitably well,
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden has been transmitted into a little more
Speaker 1: than a game token is routinely implied by the substance
Speaker 1: of our political conversations. Inevitably, discussions of Donald Trump's candidacy
Speaker 1: revolve around what will happen if Donald Trump wins the presidency,
Speaker 1: and inevitably, discussions of Joe Biden's candidacy revolve around what
Speaker 1: will happen if Donald Trump wins the presidency?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Right? And then he unleashes a couple of sentences that
Speaker 1: I love. Filter out the partisan hallucinations in which Biden
Speaker 1: is cast as a successful president, and you'll find a
Speaker 1: little more than an anti matter left within the residue.
Speaker 1: Biden must win because Donald Trump must not. And because
Speaker 1: Biden must win, then Biden cannot be too old or
Speaker 1: too incompetent or too misguided, because if Biden is too
Speaker 1: old or too incompetent or too miscotted, then Donald Trump
Speaker 1: might win, and was established earlier, donald Trump must not win.
Speaker 1: And then finally he says, what makes the whole thing
Speaker 1: so startlingly, utterly, unfathomably weird is that the people who
Speaker 1: are responsible for this whole token candidacy are the very
Speaker 1: same people who will immediately begin orchestrating Biden's removal if
Speaker 1: he manages to win in November. After all, twenty three
Speaker 1: seconds after he's won, everything will change, and when it does,
Speaker 1: the reversal will be astonishing in both speed and scope. Instantly,
Speaker 1: all of Biden's senile techs will be visibled, all within
Speaker 1: seconds of his inauguration, the science will begin to cast
Speaker 1: doubts on the ability of any octogenarian to do such
Speaker 1: a demanding job. After a couple of bad polls, the
Speaker 1: muttering will begin. After the first public slip up, the
Speaker 1: Sunday shows will swoop in and as the party starts
Speaker 1: to look forward to the midterms, the number of amateur
Speaker 1: grim reapers will multiply into a requim chorus that drowns
Speaker 1: out all but their own. Yeah, and then he mentions
Speaker 1: the late night comics and friendly cable channels will practice
Speaker 1: their row full faces and blah blah blah. So just
Speaker 1: so we can not talk about Joe Biden for a while,
Speaker 1: jam this in here. Polling came out on the whole
Speaker 1: student loan thing. This is very maddening. As a taxpayer,
Speaker 1: I hate that program period, the bailing out the most
Speaker 1: privileged people in America to help the working class somehow. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the first polling came out on that yesterday, and relatively
Speaker 1: few Americans are fans of it. Three in ten US
Speaker 1: adults say they approve of how Biden has handled the
Speaker 1: issue of student loan debt thirty percent, four and ten disapprove,
Speaker 1: So he's upside down on that. And according to this
Speaker 1: poll from the University of Chicago School of Public Policy,
Speaker 1: the outlook wasn't better for among those responsible for unpaid
Speaker 1: student loan debt, either for themselves or for a family member.
Speaker 1: Thirty six approved, thirty four disapproved, So it's a wash.
Speaker 1: It's fifty to fifty even on people who owe the money.
Speaker 1: So you spent all that taxpayer money on the least
Speaker 1: progressive thing progressives ever done have done, and you didn't
Speaker 1: even get any votes out of it. I just think
Speaker 1: that's a gesture of abandoning any pretense that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has not become the party of college educated, young
Speaker 1: white women who think with their feelings. But I was
Speaker 1: just like their whole deal. I wish you could take
Speaker 1: it back, since it's going to end up costing us
Speaker 1: like eight hundred billion dollars or something. I mean, the
Speaker 1: amount that it's going to end up costing us over
Speaker 1: time is in is crazy for a variety of reasons
Speaker 1: we could get into. But oh, I see what you're
Speaker 1: driving at. I wish I wish he could say, oh wow,
Speaker 1: it didn't even buy me any votes. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to give the money back to the taxpayer and the programs.
Speaker 1: This is my best idea ever. When there is political pandering,
Speaker 1: people writing themselves checks from the treasury through their party
Speaker 1: of choice, right, and it turns out that it didn't
Speaker 1: actually buy them any favor and the program Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying, is that it's the unsuccessful pandering amendment. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: if you're, if you're, if your attempt to buy votes
Speaker 1: buys no votes, didn't buy votes, then you give the
Speaker 1: money back to the taxpayer. There you go. This is
Speaker 1: our contribution to the republic. All these decades of babbling
Speaker 1: into microphones, we finally come up with something to help
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Isn't that something that it's
Speaker 1: a wash among the students and the parents who owe
Speaker 1: the money. It's fifty to fifty on whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not. Well, it's just it's idiotic. It's immoral,
Speaker 1: it's impractical, it's anti progressive, it's unfair. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just it's stinks.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: You can't even get a majority of people who would
Speaker 1: be benefisheries of it to say, wow, that's cool. Nice.
Speaker 1: You can't even pander.
Speaker 3: You suck.
Speaker 1: Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 1: Why is it so cold with your Michael? Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I had turned it up and then the air condition
Speaker 1: turned itself back on. It's punishment, I guess it's punishment
Speaker 1: for what I did to that we did to deserve this,
Speaker 1: But it's like fifty eight degrees in here, being treated
Speaker 1: like North Korean dissidents. Huh, what's up with that? Speaking
Speaker 1: of North Korea, woke up to see that Putin and
Speaker 1: North Korea assigned a pact. They now have a packed
Speaker 1: to come to each other's defense if they are attacked
Speaker 1: by I guess they're implying us well. And it's full
Speaker 1: of what delights me in spite of the horror of
Speaker 1: the thing. I am always amused by the stilted, grandiose
Speaker 1: language that comes out of every pronouncement from North Korea.
Speaker 1: The permanent friendship built of solid granite between our two
Speaker 1: gargatchuan people's. I mean, they're it's just always that inflated rhetoric.
Speaker 1: I'll find the specific story, but it's just that's pretty good, ridiculous,
Speaker 1: solid gargantuan peoples. They're pledged an everlasting friendship and on
Speaker 1: wavering support. I do agreement would form the backbone of
Speaker 1: the countries. BA right, oh here it is. I am
Speaker 1: confident that during this visit, the ardent friendship between the
Speaker 1: two countries will be strengthening. Like I'm on a list,
Speaker 1: all right. I don't get the crowd that doesn't think
Speaker 1: we need to engage these people. Russia and China and
Speaker 1: North Korea and Iran are intertwined in more ways than
Speaker 1: they've ever been. Iran's providing weapons to Russia. Russia's providing
Speaker 1: stuff to Iran. It's shown up and fighting is that's
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and all over the place. In China. Of course,
Speaker 1: we know what China is and they're all working together,
Speaker 1: and it's terrible. It's terrible for the world. This is
Speaker 1: a major world moment. Yeah, it is. I think the isolationist,
Speaker 1: crowded neo isolationists would say, well, they're just doing that
Speaker 1: because the US has pressured them. They form a weird
Speaker 1: kind of alliance with the self hating liberal. They believe
Speaker 1: that all evil that befalls the world that has anything
Speaker 1: to do with the United States is the fault of
Speaker 1: the United Storce. Well, I spent a decent chunk of
Speaker 1: my adulthood as a near isolationist, so it's not like
Speaker 1: I'm completely out of touch with that thinking. I do
Speaker 1: think I was wrong at this point. It would be
Speaker 1: wonderful if isolationism worked. That would be great. Yeah, yeah, Oh,
Speaker 1: you don't have to get involved in everything. That's certainly true,
Speaker 1: and we've gotten involved in things we didn't need to
Speaker 1: get involved in Yeah, I would say that's absolutely true.
Speaker 1: And like most things in life, the extreme points of
Speaker 1: view are very simple and easy to understand, and so
Speaker 1: people like them. And the truth in foreign policy, like
Speaker 1: in life, is that, no, it's going to be a
Speaker 1: bunch of difficult judgments, and so many of them are
Speaker 1: going to be like right on the margin, you're just
Speaker 1: not sure. But the idea that you can just isolate yourself,
Speaker 1: especially in the new global instantaneous communication, practically instantaneous weaponry world,
Speaker 1: it's just not true. Yeah, And like I mentioned yesterday,
Speaker 1: you weren't here on Friday when we talked to Josh
Speaker 1: Rogan and his article in the Washington Post, US military
Speaker 1: plans a hellscape to deter China, and it's pretty damned interesting.
Speaker 1: But we're taking it super seriously as we should. That
Speaker 1: China is going to move on Taiwan at some point,
Speaker 1: and it could happen. I don't think there's any stopping it. Actually,
Speaker 1: there's a quote from Trump where Trump said, oh, in
Speaker 1: the latest interview with Time magazine, when he asked if
Speaker 1: we would defend Taiwan, he said it would depend on
Speaker 1: the circumstances. President Trump once told a GOP senator in
Speaker 1: a closed meeting that there isn't a blanking thing we
Speaker 1: can do about it. If China decides to take Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I think that's close to right. It's going to happen
Speaker 1: in like an hour. I mean someday. All these military
Speaker 1: exercises they have, like the other day where they got
Speaker 1: the whole island surrounded with ships and planes and everything
Speaker 1: like that, what if they actually do it for real?
Speaker 1: How would we stop that? Yeah, it might not even
Speaker 1: be an attack, it would just be a siege. But anyway,
Speaker 1: the healthscape idea is, we got gazillions of unmanned submarines
Speaker 1: and flying drones and all kinds of stuff that we
Speaker 1: would unleash on them instantly to try to slow them
Speaker 1: down to bias some time. Because our Pentagon knows that
Speaker 1: they're gonna be able to do this in like, you know,
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes if they decided to do it, So we
Speaker 1: got to move super super fast. So we got the
Speaker 1: healthc that is the drone attack, and then that buys
Speaker 1: us some time, plugged the zone with some drones. It's
Speaker 1: a zone drone well exactly, good luck. But I read
Speaker 1: Josh's piece at your recommendation and thought, wow, that is
Speaker 1: really intriguing, and I'm not sure I'm buying it right. Well,
Speaker 1: I have to say the incredible interconnection of virtually all
Speaker 1: of the economies, No, that's not true. I mean North
Speaker 1: Korean rush, aren't that introducing? Anyway? Economic intertwining is what's
Speaker 1: holding China back at this point, and it would not
Speaker 1: be an easy military victory over Taiwan, not by any
Speaker 1: stretch of the imagination. Whether it could be turned back
Speaker 1: is a different question. It would probably be really quagmiriy.
Speaker 1: So I'm going through the America's Cold Wars with David sangerbook,
Speaker 1: and he has got a long piece in there about
Speaker 1: the relationship between Russian and China through the years, and
Speaker 1: Stalin was somewhat shocked at one point when Mao, who chairman,
Speaker 1: she idolizes and wants to be the new Mao. Mao
Speaker 1: told Stalin, I'm perfectly fine with losing one hundred million
Speaker 1: people if I have to defeat the United States a
Speaker 1: hundred million.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, I don't know if she's close to that number,
Speaker 1: but if he was a fraction of it, if he's
Speaker 1: only willing to lose a million men, we don't have
Speaker 1: that kind of appetite. Nothing within them a thousand miles
Speaker 1: Oh no, no. And that's one of the great weaknesses
Speaker 1: we have as Americans is we think everybody thinks like us.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's because we're isolated by a couple of oceans.
Speaker 1: But I've mentioned this before in Maine kompf Harr Hitler
Speaker 1: mentions that if you're going to be one of the
Speaker 1: great men of history, you have to be willing to
Speaker 1: sacrifice the tens of thousands at any moment, and if
Speaker 1: you don't have the gall for that, you're not going
Speaker 1: to be a great man of history. Well that's rough. Yeah, healthscape,
Speaker 1: Can we do we actually have a hellscape ready to go? Well,
Speaker 1: that's a secret. I hope we do. I hope we
Speaker 1: have a healthscape of drones, submarine drones, submarine drones and
Speaker 1: air drones at the same time. Very exciting. Flood to zone.
Speaker 1: We need those Chinese We need those Chinese dogs. I've
Speaker 1: seen the robot dogs with the machine gun on their back.
Speaker 1: Are they gonna swim? Yeah? I guess dog paddle. It's
Speaker 1: still looks scary. You if I see one of those
Speaker 1: Chinese metal dogs running at me with a machine gun.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna lose my mud, as they said
Speaker 1: in the Civil War arm Strong see Armstrong and getting shot.
Speaker 1: So a quick metal game here. How much money do
Speaker 1: you need to be considered? What term do they use? Wealthy?
Speaker 1: Like your net worth? How much would you have to
Speaker 1: have in the bank to be wealthy? The trouble with
Speaker 1: these questions, as we always point out, is where do
Speaker 1: I live? Where I live currently? If I'm going to
Speaker 1: stay here, it's a pretty big number. If I'm where
Speaker 1: my brother lives, it's a much much smaller number to
Speaker 1: have a perfectly happy life. So you are both absolutely
Speaker 1: correct and a fun suck. All right, Let's specify you
Speaker 1: are in a third quintile cost of living part of America,
Speaker 1: so you're like above average, but not San Francis. So
Speaker 1: the question is, and I'll stop being a fun suck,
Speaker 1: So what's the number? What's the number that makes you
Speaker 1: wealthy for your net worth?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So anyway, we'll come back to that in a minute.
Speaker 1: A couple of stories about financing money and retirement, that
Speaker 1: sort of thing, getting away from politics, at least for
Speaker 1: a little while. I thought it was interesting, and though
Speaker 1: we are both gen Xers at the older end of
Speaker 1: Gen xers. And I've been aware of this, I hadn't
Speaker 1: ever really thought about it. The generation was the first
Speaker 1: generation to see a massive shift in how Americans work
Speaker 1: and save for retirement. Companies moved from pensions that promise
Speaker 1: steady income after years of service, the gold watch at
Speaker 1: the retirement you worked for one or two companies your
Speaker 1: entire career, Dad did to a much much more mobile
Speaker 1: feel of employment, and four A one k's becoming your
Speaker 1: retirement savings method and it's in your own hands. And
Speaker 1: in fact, there are some of the financial services industry
Speaker 1: that call gen X. I think it's the four to
Speaker 1: one K experiment generation. That's interesting. They call it an experiment,
Speaker 1: which insinuates that they think it might not work or
Speaker 1: be a good idea. Is that what they're insinuating, I suppose.
Speaker 1: So I've never seen it as an experiment. It always
Speaker 1: just seemed like such solidly a good idea, right. But
Speaker 1: you've got to admit, because you know, some some people,
Speaker 1: whether they're lower education or they're you know, they're just
Speaker 1: busy or don't have the interest in following politics and finance,
Speaker 1: they got into four oh one k's very very late
Speaker 1: or didn't appreciate the importance of starting early. Compound interest et.
Speaker 1: It's a really good program in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: but you have to opt in. I've been hammering my
Speaker 1: kids on that since they were too young to have
Speaker 1: the slightest idea what it even means. Just so it's
Speaker 1: in their head somewhere. Start putting in the max of
Speaker 1: your four oh one K the first time you get one.
Speaker 1: I don't care if you have to eat cats like
Speaker 1: you're a Haitian immigrant. Put your money in your four
Speaker 1: oh one k. Change your life. Yeah. Yeah, So, as
Speaker 1: an individualist, I have zero problem with me being in
Speaker 1: charge of my retirement.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: In fact, I wish George W. Had been successful in
Speaker 1: privatizing social security. Everybody listening would be a good deal
Speaker 1: ridger now where they are come retirement. We all know
Speaker 1: what the punchline to this is. Though, somebody that decides
Speaker 1: not to put into their four oh one or the
Speaker 1: George W. Bush style private retirement, they get to old
Speaker 1: age and don't have any money, and it's presented as
Speaker 1: they don't have a dignified retirement and we need to
Speaker 1: have a program for that. Oh absolutely, we need your
Speaker 1: tax dollars, including you being taxed on the very Social
Speaker 1: Security money that the government did in a paltry and
Speaker 1: hilarious way pile up for you. Fact they they don't
Speaker 1: pilot up current workers. It's in a lockbox, and it's
Speaker 1: not in a lock box. That's a blasting twenty four
Speaker 1: years ago. But I enjoyed it. Ah, right, So we
Speaker 1: could labor those points, but I think we're all kind
Speaker 1: of up on it. I loved this article in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. I loved to hate it. They're breaking
Speaker 1: every retirement rule to be off now, not later. Some
Speaker 1: workers want to spread retirements throughout their careers, even if
Speaker 1: it means a smaller four to h one k oh boy.
Speaker 1: And they profile is cute earl and her cute boyfriend
Speaker 1: and how they're taking years off of work and like
Speaker 1: spending down their savings to retire now. And they say,
Speaker 1: even if I don't have as much money when I retire,
Speaker 1: this is totally worth it. Oh my god. See, if
Speaker 1: you're if this is the problem with the libert straight
Speaker 1: libertarian point of view, and so I'm a straight libertarian,
Speaker 1: good good for you, you moron, do it. Go ahead. But
Speaker 1: if I'm a realist slash conservative. I realize when they
Speaker 1: don't have any money when they're older, you're gonna take
Speaker 1: a bunch of my tax money or raise my taxes
Speaker 1: to help them out. I know that's what's gonna happen. Well,
Speaker 1: and these these sexy thirty one year olds say, oh no,
Speaker 1: it's totally worth it to go hiking here in the Alps.
Speaker 1: And if I have less money as an ulster, it'll
Speaker 1: be great. The idea that the Wall Street Journal didn't
Speaker 1: throw in a paragraph saying, now, obviously they have no
Speaker 1: idea what they're talking about. And there could be nothing
Speaker 1: more ridiculous than a thirty one year old saying the
Speaker 1: Thrills at age thirty one are quote unquote worth being
Speaker 1: paupers as old people. Right, that's so stupid, it's almost hilarious.
Speaker 1: Let's take a moment to laugh before they get back
Speaker 1: to the text of the article. But, as Jack has
Speaker 1: pointed out, embittering the entire conversation, when they do hit
Speaker 1: their golden years and are forced to eat cat carcasses,
Speaker 1: we will be paying for them moving along. God, dang it,
Speaker 1: I know a bunch of people living like that. I
Speaker 1: know people living like that, right, now and I think
Speaker 1: I'm fine again. I don't care what you do with
Speaker 1: your money, but I know how things work in the
Speaker 1: real world. And you're gonna be voting for parties that
Speaker 1: say you don't have enough when you spent your money
Speaker 1: on traveling around Europe as a twenty six year old, right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why I hate humanity anyway. You know how many
Speaker 1: times I've traveled around Europe when I was twenty six zero.
Speaker 1: I don't even hit my current age. Why because I'm
Speaker 1: saving my money and I don't want you to get
Speaker 1: it because you think it'd be super cool to travel
Speaker 1: around the world. God, that pisses me off. Well, it's
Speaker 1: not like if you subsidize or reward bad behavior you
Speaker 1: get more of it or anything, he says, sarcastically, shaking
Speaker 1: his head sadly and wanting nothing more than to vanish
Speaker 1: into the woods and leave humanity behind. Finally. This according
Speaker 1: to a major modern wealth survey by Charles Schwab dot
Speaker 1: dot dot. What is it? They asked Americans what average
Speaker 1: networth it takes to be wealthy, with the caveat that. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: they mentioned that when it comes to geographic regions, California
Speaker 1: has the highest threshold of what it takes to be wealthy,
Speaker 1: of course, And I'll tell you, all Americans say it's
Speaker 1: two point five million dollars net worth a wealthy on
Speaker 1: average concascination, it's two and a half million. It's higher
Speaker 1: than I would have guessed. Well, San Franciscans say it
Speaker 1: takes four point four million. To your point, I don't
Speaker 1: blame them, given the cost of a house or rent
Speaker 1: or whatever. And Southern Cali Unicornians indicated it takes an
Speaker 1: average networth of three point four million. Survey respondents who
Speaker 1: lived in Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, in Dallas expressed lower numbers,
Speaker 1: of course, which is why any national figure, like for
Speaker 1: income tax, for instance, is utterly unfair and ridiculous. Having
Speaker 1: said that, I suppose you if you don't like where
Speaker 1: you are and your taxes and your wealth, and that
Speaker 1: you could move. So I just would like to point
Speaker 1: out for all you who don't live in California, it
Speaker 1: is really expensive to live here, but what you get
Speaker 1: for what you pay is a kick in the groin.
Speaker 1: All Americans say you have to have two point five
Speaker 1: million to be wealthy, to be financially comfortable, seven hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy eight thousand dollars net worth. Yeah, again, depending
Speaker 1: on where you live. Good luck with that in San Francisco. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well get the hell out. Boomers say you need two
Speaker 1: point eight million dollars or seven hundred and eighty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to be financially comfortable. Not surprisingly. Now this is interesting.
Speaker 1: Jen X says you need two point seven million, whichs
Speaker 1: right there in the number. But they say to be
Speaker 1: financially comfortable, you need eight hundred and seventy three thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: which is almost one hundred thousand more than boomers and
Speaker 1: all Americans. The biggest wilds, the biggest wild card that
Speaker 1: nobody factors in until they start to get older is
Speaker 1: healthcare costs. Yeah, because you have have had zero Your
Speaker 1: healthcare costs every year are almost none when you're thirty five,
Speaker 1: as I remember it. But today until the bridge is
Speaker 1: taking yeah, until it's like, holy crap, this is going
Speaker 1: to ruin me in a couple of decades. Yeah, which
Speaker 1: is one of the things that I'm glad you threw
Speaker 1: that in. As I'm looking at those healthy thirty one
Speaker 1: year olds hiking about Europe. It comes for all of us.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much I would have to have
Speaker 1: to be like completely confident everything will be fine because
Speaker 1: you know, the right health problem comes along or long
Speaker 1: term care kerb Blewie, I don't mean to freak anybody out,
Speaker 1: but well, and then in a world where a lot
Speaker 1: of people who have kids have one who's got a
Speaker 1: variety of problems because who knows why that's happening, that's
Speaker 1: an expense too. You weren't planning on when you were
Speaker 1: hiking at age thirty. Well, finally, though they're optimistic about
Speaker 1: their future wealth, respondents acknowledge that there's more that they
Speaker 1: can do. With fewer than one in five saying they're
Speaker 1: currently on top of their finances, eighteen percent say yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing and doing
Speaker 1: it systematically. Whoa again to your bitter point, Oh, bitter Jack,
Speaker 1: you know what's fun on a Friday talking to bitter Jack. Hey,
Speaker 1: bitter Jack, come pull up a bar stool, ruin our
Speaker 1: day for us. I'm here for you, doing Jack. I'm
Speaker 1: good now, but I could be decimated by future health problems. Oh,
Speaker 1: who invite a bitter Jack? Arm Strong, Hedy the Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show.
Speaker 5: Jacqulemen, fish is the bucerushe manafish?
Speaker 1: How long we've been playing that clip? Long time?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Long time? Does it mean nailed it down when this broke? Yeah,
Speaker 1: the incident in which Jack Carlson was arrested, And we'll
Speaker 1: play you the full audio that actually happened in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one. It took some time for the video to circulate,
Speaker 1: partly because the Internet wasn't really up and running. No, no,
Speaker 1: this is the sort of thing that would have exploded
Speaker 1: the day of now, But the Internet wasn't a thing
Speaker 1: really in ninety one. Yeah. Well, the moment we heard
Speaker 1: this clip, we were in love with it. It is
Speaker 1: so funny and colorful, and the story behind it's pretty
Speaker 1: interesting too. In loving memory of Jack Carlson, Democracy activists
Speaker 1: the whole thing.
Speaker 3: You just assured me that I could speak to sit
Speaker 3: inside the car.
Speaker 1: You're not assuring anything.
Speaker 3: I'm under what gentlemen?
Speaker 5: This is democracy manifest.
Speaker 3: Have a look at the headlock. See that chap over
Speaker 3: the head jar of my penis. This is the bike
Speaker 3: who got me on the penis before? Why did you
Speaker 3: do this? But what reason? What is the charge eating
Speaker 3: on me?
Speaker 6: Old a succulent Chinese maol oh, that's nice.
Speaker 3: Headlocks up. Yes, I see that. You know your Judo
Speaker 3: wealth and user. Are you waiting to receive my limp venus? Now?
Speaker 3: Againt your hands.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: One book.
Speaker 1: Why was he being arrested for eating a mail? A
Speaker 1: succulent Chinese mail? He was being arrested for paying for
Speaker 1: a succulent Chinese meal with a stolen credit card. Okay,
Speaker 1: put me in a headlock and you know Judo anyway,
Speaker 1: Michael ian Pepper throws in as you like during the discussion.
Speaker 1: But what a colorable way to get arrested for credit
Speaker 1: card fraud. That was Jack Carlson, a non diplume of
Speaker 1: one Cecil George Edwards who had a very interesting life.
Speaker 1: He's born in nineteen forty two. He was an orphan.
Speaker 1: He was an award of the Blackheath Presbyterian Boys Home
Speaker 1: in the Brisbane suburb of Oxley, where he had a rough,
Speaker 1: rough childhood. He began a lifelong career petty crime in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty was in prison for much of the first
Speaker 1: half of his life, escaped several times. In prison, he
Speaker 1: met Jim McNeil and encouraged him to write plays about
Speaker 1: his prison experience, which became famous throughout Australia. They remained
Speaker 1: friends until McNeil's death, and this guy became something of
Speaker 1: a personality. I can see how yeah. Yeah. So in
Speaker 1: June of twenty two, academic Dean Byron, who was one
Speaker 1: of the arresting officers incused in the show Hands Off
Speaker 1: My Paid Ass part of the video, he wrote an
Speaker 1: articles about the incident, a request I usually don't make. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the guy was held in custody or released on
Speaker 1: bail overnight and disappeared until his fifteen minutes of fame
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, and somehow he was scrubbed clean of
Speaker 1: his pesky past. Huh so he's pretty old. He's the
Speaker 1: same age as my mom and Joe Biden. Then yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I suppose so roughly. Yeah, well yeah, Michael hit us
Speaker 1: with fourteen Just just throw matus.
Speaker 3: What is the jog eating me?
Speaker 5: Old?
Speaker 3: A succulent Chinese? My own? Yes, I see that. You
Speaker 3: know your judo?
Speaker 1: Well, no hanging for it with the stolen credit card,
Speaker 1: your angel. Every sentence the guy utters is an artwork,
Speaker 1: is a work of art. It's a piece of genius.
Speaker 1: I remember when we did this At the time, we wondered,
Speaker 1: does he talk that way all the time? Was that
Speaker 1: just the way he always spoke? Darling? What would you
Speaker 1: like for dinner?
Speaker 3: And are you waiting to receive my limb venus?
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's too much of that. Give you eleven again?
Speaker 1: Come on, gentle fish?
Speaker 5: Is the matter fish?
Speaker 1: The way rules is are very very, very exciting. Uh.
Speaker 1: Do we know how he died? How'd he die?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Do we know? I mean, I know he passed away. Okay,
Speaker 1: I didn't know. If you like choke on pork, fried
Speaker 1: rice or something, Katy Green knows the answer. He had cancer. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not as funny as Michael's idea. Are you ready?
Speaker 1: Do you feel now? Michael feel pretty bad? Yeah? Are you?
Speaker 1: Are you ready to receive my LP? That's a that's
Speaker 1: an interesting thing to say. Oh boy thirteen, Michael, come on,
Speaker 1: do your job in there.
Speaker 3: This is the bike who got me on the Fenish people?
Speaker 1: Hey wow, Well he makes the word people into a symphony.
Speaker 1: It's a five syllable word in his brilliant hands. Did
Speaker 1: he ever make it to the stage. He's built for
Speaker 1: the theater? Gosh, I'd say yeah. By the way, past.
Speaker 4: This video was made nineteen ninety one, but it didn't
Speaker 4: get uploaded until two thousand and nine.
Speaker 1: So that's when it took off. Two thousand and nine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds about right. Fifteen years. That's a long time ago.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting how many like acquaintances of mine who
Speaker 1: have my phone number texted me the news of his
Speaker 1: death because remembering his uh love that whole thing. We're
Speaker 1: inundated with emails. Same guys, you've got to pay tribute.
Speaker 1: It's like we wouldn't. It's pretty funny to be wrestled
Speaker 1: to the ground by the police like that because you're
Speaker 1: resisting arrest and saying, I see you know you're judo.
Speaker 3: Well I guess I see that you know your judo.
Speaker 1: Well concentrate if you will, on the voices of the
Speaker 1: cops in the background, who were saying, all right, get
Speaker 1: in the cop.
Speaker 3: Just you know, you're just assured me that I could
Speaker 3: speak to sit in and saw the cap.
Speaker 1: You're not assuring any sit down inside the cop because
Speaker 1: they're like, dude, it's a credit card, beef, this is
Speaker 1: this is not that big a deal. Hey, I got
Speaker 1: other things to do. Yes, you're gonna be out like
Speaker 1: in two hours, we gotta fill out some forms. Get
Speaker 1: in the car, all right, go ahead, But.
Speaker 3: What what is the charge eating on me?
Speaker 6: Old a succulent Chinese me. Old, Oh that's you nice
Speaker 6: headlocks up? Yes, I see that.
Speaker 3: You know your judo well and user.
Speaker 6: Are you waiting to receive polt venus down your hands?
Speaker 1: That's That's the time Lawrence Olivier was arrested for falsely
Speaker 1: portraying Hamlet or something. I mean, that is so weird. Wait,
Speaker 1: you're you're under arrest. I'm under what? I'm under? What arrest?
Speaker 1: I just told you?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 1: Headlock hand? What a funny thing? The Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: Show and more Jack more Joe podcasts and our hotlinks
Speaker 1: and Armstrong dot com