Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gerdusky, where
Speaker 1: I try to give you the numbers behind the narrative.
Speaker 1: This is episode twelve, and I want to remind all
Speaker 1: my listeners that if you like my work, please smash
Speaker 1: the like and subscribe button and give me a review
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or iHeartRadio app wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. It really really helps and it makes
Speaker 1: a difference. I almost said politics and podcasts, but that's
Speaker 1: okay because I make a lot of You know, this
Speaker 1: is just how I talk. In the nineteen ninety hit
Speaker 1: film Ghost Whoopi Goldberg looks at Demi Moore and says, Molly,
Speaker 1: you endanger girl. Well, a series of new polls have
Speaker 1: come out on the how Americans feel the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and well they're in danger. According to the NBC News
Speaker 1: poll that was released on Sunday, only seven percent of
Speaker 1: Americans have a very positive rating of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Mind you that the nation of Russia right now has
Speaker 1: a three percent very positive ratings, So Democrats are twice
Speaker 1: as more likely to be popular with American voters as
Speaker 1: the aggressor in a European war. There are veneer diseases
Speaker 1: that are more popular right now than the Demoric party.
Speaker 1: And it gets worse for Democrats. When they ask them
Speaker 1: who they prefer to run Congress, forty seven percent of
Speaker 1: respondents say the Democrats and forty six percent say Republicans
Speaker 1: and five percent undecided. And you may think, well, Ryan,
Speaker 1: that's okay. I mean that Democrats have a point lead
Speaker 1: over Republicans the generic ballot. It is bad because it
Speaker 1: is substantially lower than the last time Trump was in office.
Speaker 1: At this time. In April twenty seventeen, in the same
Speaker 1: NBC News poll, they found the Democrats had a four
Speaker 1: point lead and there was a ten percent undecided, so
Speaker 1: there was a lot more to work with. And by
Speaker 1: June that number for Democratic that lead for Democrats had
Speaker 1: grown to eight points, basically the twenty eighteen wave. That
Speaker 1: wave for Democrats started forming in the beginning of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: We saw that coming, and we don't really see that
Speaker 1: coming the way it did right now. Some other headlines
Speaker 1: from polls that you may not be aware of is
Speaker 1: that a majority or plurality of people of the American
Speaker 1: public say that Trump is bringing the right kind of
Speaker 1: change more than the wrong change on issues like the economy, immigration,
Speaker 1: the size of government, to the Middle East, Ukraine, tariffs, inflation,
Speaker 1: and NATO on all those issues which you hear about
Speaker 1: complained by the mainstream media constantly. More Americans say he's
Speaker 1: doing the right thing than the wrong thing. Now, there
Speaker 1: is a lot to say that he's doing nothing, but
Speaker 1: still that number for Democrats where they want to be,
Speaker 1: should be much higher on the fact that he's doing
Speaker 1: the wrong thing impounding the issue. This is On's in
Speaker 1: from the NBC newsporpt. Thirty six percent of Americans say
Speaker 1: that they identify as part of the MAGA movement. Then
Speaker 1: maybe you're saying they're saying thirty percent. That's not high,
Speaker 1: it's not a majority. Well, for the first time ever,
Speaker 1: there are more people who say they're part of the
Speaker 1: MAGA movement and say that they're evangelical Christian. Thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the country identifies evangelical Christian thirty six percent as
Speaker 1: the MAGA movement. There are more people who say they're
Speaker 1: in the MAGA movement than are people who work in
Speaker 1: labor unions. So the MAGA movement right now is bigger
Speaker 1: population wise than labor unions and evangelical Christians. I think
Speaker 1: this underscores the problem Democrats have when they call them
Speaker 1: all extremists. You're likely to know someone in the Maga
Speaker 1: movement or identify themselves as part of the magam They
Speaker 1: could be you, they could be your relative, they could
Speaker 1: be a dear friend. But it's much bigger than the
Speaker 1: extremism than they like to sit there and portray on
Speaker 1: the campaign trail in September of twenty twenty three, twenty
Speaker 1: one percent of the public, so they were part of
Speaker 1: the Maga movement. That was September twenty twenty three. That's
Speaker 1: only what eighteen months ago. Eighteen months you're talking a
Speaker 1: fifteen point increase of the overall public. It's a big
Speaker 1: increase in a very very short period of time. And
Speaker 1: maybe it'll go down eventually, maybe we'll go up. We're
Speaker 1: inching our way, nearing forty percent saying they belong to
Speaker 1: political movement. That is a minority, but that is not
Speaker 1: a that's a workable minority. That's a minority that can
Speaker 1: win elections. So the NBC poll to sum it up,
Speaker 1: Democrats have an overall favorability rating of twenty seven percent,
Speaker 1: and just seven percent say they have a very positive
Speaker 1: rating of the party. Americans are more likely to say
Speaker 1: that Trump is doing the right kind of change and
Speaker 1: the wrong kind of change on a lot of big issues.
Speaker 1: And more than a third of Americans say they're part
Speaker 1: of the MAGA movement. Now that wouldn't be bad if
Speaker 1: it existed in its own bubble, Like it's just one
Speaker 1: off poll cares you know, polls are wrong all the time.
Speaker 1: But a CNM poll came out the same day as
Speaker 1: the NBC poll and told a very similar story about
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. Just twenty nine percent of Americans in
Speaker 1: that pole, So they are favorable opinion of Democrats, including
Speaker 1: just twenty six percent of men, twenty five percent of
Speaker 1: white voters, and nineteen percent of independence. A poll from
Speaker 1: Atlas Intel, which was the most accurate poles from the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four election, or one of the most accurate.
Speaker 1: It was the only one that I know of publicly
Speaker 1: to predict that Trump would not only win the electoral
Speaker 1: College vote, but also win the popular vote. It said
Speaker 1: that Americans that poll the Atlas Intel pole Americans had
Speaker 1: a negative opinion of every single well known public Democrat,
Speaker 1: including the Obamas. Michelle and Barack Obama have a negative
Speaker 1: four and negative two percent Fairbaal writing nationally and they're
Speaker 1: in the best. AOC is negative nine, Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: negative fifteen, Joe Biden is negative twenty six, Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: is negative twenty nine. Hillary Clinton is negative thirty, and
Speaker 1: there is no agreement right now who is the leader
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. In the CNN poll, only one
Speaker 1: politician cracked double digitus who was the leader, and that
Speaker 1: was AOC at ten percent. Bernie Sanders was close by
Speaker 1: at eight. Congressman Jasmine Crockett. She's the middle aged woman
Speaker 1: who grew up in private schools from Cada twelve that
Speaker 1: cost over thirty thousand dollars a year, and now she
Speaker 1: pretends to be a dime store CARDI b that member
Speaker 1: of Congress. She's tied with Barack Obama, with the former president.
Speaker 1: There is no safe place to rest your eyes. Pulling aside,
Speaker 1: there's also hard numbers that are really going to be
Speaker 1: a hard pill for Democrats to swallow. In February, when
Speaker 1: most dates started to clamp their voter roles and elimiting
Speaker 1: people who had died or moved or were inactive, Democrats
Speaker 1: lost three hundred and nine thousand registered voters nationwide. Republicans
Speaker 1: lost twenty nine thousand on a poll that's hard numbers,
Speaker 1: three hundred nine thousand versus twenty nine thousand, and everything.
Speaker 1: Speaking of hard numbers, everything that David Shore. David Shore
Speaker 1: is a Democratic data scientist. He's absolutely brilliant. I read
Speaker 1: everything that he writes. I begged him to come on
Speaker 1: this podcast and said he went on Ezra Clent's podcast
Speaker 1: in The New York Times, was like, I get, but
Speaker 1: I want him on my podcast. He gave an autopsy
Speaker 1: as to why Democrats and specifically Kama Harris lost in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty fours. That is jaw dropping for the party.
Speaker 1: David Shore found that among white voters, regardless if they
Speaker 1: were conservative, liberal, or moderate, there was really no change
Speaker 1: between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four. There was an
Speaker 1: important change between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty and then
Speaker 1: again in twenty twenty four. In other words, moderates and
Speaker 1: liberals voted more towards the Democrats in twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: then they moved back in twenty sixteen. That did happen,
Speaker 1: but that probably has a coronavirus or the media being
Speaker 1: hysterical on Trump. But between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: The white voters did not change in those eight years,
Speaker 1: so while that didn't move much, minorities moved a lot.
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen, Hillary Clinton won eighty five percent of
Speaker 1: Black conservatives. That number fell to seventy seven percent for
Speaker 1: Kamala Harrison twenty twenty four, and eight point drop. Because
Speaker 1: a quarter of Blacks who identify as conservatives no longer
Speaker 1: vote on their race. They vote on their political ideology.
Speaker 1: It's a big change and a big deal. Voting on
Speaker 1: ideology over race is the story of the last decades
Speaker 1: in politics. According to David Shor's data, many people understated
Speaker 1: this and under didn't believe it would happen, especially with Trump,
Speaker 1: because they believed that he was only a party for
Speaker 1: you know, white people or whatever. Hillary Clinton won eighty
Speaker 1: one percent of moderate Hispanics and thirty four percent of
Speaker 1: conservative Hispanics. When Harris ran, her support among modern Hispanics
Speaker 1: fell by twenty three points and among conservative Spanics by
Speaker 1: seventeen points. For Asian Americans, the numbers were pretty striking
Speaker 1: as well. Harris lost fifteen percent of moderate EA Asians
Speaker 1: that had voted for Hillary Clinton. One in seven basically
Speaker 1: between one and six and one and seven, and he
Speaker 1: says that shift is primarily among young people. Young people,
Speaker 1: David Shore went from being the most progressive generation to
Speaker 1: being one of the most conservative. Among voters under the
Speaker 1: age of twenty, Donald Trump won a majority of white men,
Speaker 1: white women, and non white men, including primarily Hispanics and Asians,
Speaker 1: but a lot of black young men. Ami Harris won
Speaker 1: twenty five percent of white men under the age of twenty.
Speaker 1: Twenty five percent. That is deep South number levels for
Speaker 1: white men. I mean that is and that's nationwide. Any
Speaker 1: Republican ever won twenty five percent of white men overall,
Speaker 1: they would have won every state of the Union. You know,
Speaker 1: back twenty years ago, thirty years ago. People who get
Speaker 1: their news from traditional news media, and they diligently listen
Speaker 1: to a lot of like traditional news media, politics and
Speaker 1: the news is a big part of their life, they're
Speaker 1: becoming more and more democratic. Short's Information says that those
Speaker 1: who get their information from social media and TikTok and
Speaker 1: politics isn't their whole life, they're becoming more Republican. This
Speaker 1: breakdown across educational lines is happening around the entire Western world,
Speaker 1: where you have populist figures across the world recently winning
Speaker 1: the support of lower information. I'm wanna say low information
Speaker 1: lower people who don't read the news as much, people
Speaker 1: who are don't make politics their entire life. They are
Speaker 1: becoming more and more populous in their sentiment, and they're
Speaker 1: getting they're voting more and more often. David Schoure breaks
Speaker 1: it down like this. Had only people who voted in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two election voted in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris would have won the popular vote and the
Speaker 1: Electoral College. But if everyone in the country had voted,
Speaker 1: everybody they were all forced to vote, not only would
Speaker 1: have Trump won, but he would have won the popular
Speaker 1: vote by five points, probably enough to win fifty more
Speaker 1: electoral College votes by flipping Virginia, Minnesota, and New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: New Mexico, Maine, and New Jersey. George says that low
Speaker 1: propensity voters simply lost track with Democrats on a number
Speaker 1: of key issues. They don't really love Trump, but they
Speaker 1: don't trust Democrats at all, and some of the issues
Speaker 1: are surprising. They don't trust Democrats on artificial intelligence, on
Speaker 1: drug abuse, on civil liberties, on education, on social security,
Speaker 1: on student loans, on international trade. At the end of
Speaker 1: the survey, shore rights that Democrats do have some areas
Speaker 1: they can attack Trump on, like cuts for Medicare and
Speaker 1: Medicaid and repealing Obamacare and taxes for the rich, but
Speaker 1: get where they're losing big time on immigration, on deportations,
Speaker 1: putting the military on the border, designating the cartel as terrorists,
Speaker 1: requiring voter id, ending taxes on tips and social security,
Speaker 1: and being forcing federal workers to go back to the office.
Speaker 1: Think of how hysterical MSNBC has been over these issues
Speaker 1: that Republicans are driving these low propensity, low information voters on.
Speaker 1: They don't understand how much they are missing the narrative.
Speaker 1: See as much as Democrats have longmow that they want
Speaker 1: a racially harmonious country, they the soft politics that want
Speaker 1: to bring everyone together. Their politics don't work when Blacks,
Speaker 1: Hispanics and Asians are not voting on their race and
Speaker 1: they're voting on their ideology. And that is what Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris proved. They're the only people fighting against like white
Speaker 1: nationalism does in hold water when a majority of non
Speaker 1: white men under twenty are not voting for you anymore.
Speaker 1: And they don't understand that Donald Trump is bigger. This
Speaker 1: is a bigger moment than just one politician who they
Speaker 1: hate or Elon Musk. This is a moment, a realignment
Speaker 1: across the globe, and it's going to get bigger, not smaller.
Speaker 1: And the generation whose graduations and sporting events and lives
Speaker 1: were canceled because of COVID lockdowns, who turn to TikTok
Speaker 1: and Instagram for their information are going to be one
Speaker 1: of the most conservative generations they have ever seen. And
Speaker 1: it is a long term problem for them. To quote
Speaker 1: what Pe Goldberg again talking to Demi Moore in than
Speaker 1: the movie Ghost Democrats. You're in danger you're listening to
Speaker 1: It's a numbers Game with Ryan Grodowski. Will be right
Speaker 1: back after this message. My guest for this week's show
Speaker 1: is my buddy, Shermichael Singleton. You may have seen him
Speaker 1: on CNN, my favorite news network, and he is the
Speaker 1: co founder of guns Out TV, which is a firearms
Speaker 1: production company and we the free TV. Shermichael, thank you
Speaker 1: for being on the podcast.
Speaker 2: Hey, good to see you, bro. You just had to
Speaker 2: throw that in the open.
Speaker 1: I mean whatever, it's a little thing. It's okay. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna ask a really tough question for the first, for
Speaker 1: the first right of the gate, who is the leader
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party?
Speaker 2: The hell if I know. I don't think America knows.
Speaker 3: I don't think they know. I don't think it came Jeffreys,
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris certainly, isn't it. And Joe Biden
Speaker 3: is like they put him in a nursing home and
Speaker 3: forgot about him.
Speaker 2: No one knows. Ryan.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Even the fact that that CNN poll had Jasmine
Speaker 1: Crockett tied with Barack Obama, I go, what is happening? Right?
Speaker 3: Even A I mean, it's interesting, right, because what that suggests,
Speaker 3: and I could be wrong, what that suggests is that
Speaker 3: as they find themselves in this sort of convoluted place,
Speaker 3: it appears to me that at least those who are
Speaker 3: still most active in their party, not only in the
Speaker 3: political class, but even you know, the activist based, they're
Speaker 3: going back towards that leftward bend of their party, despite
Speaker 3: that being completely rejected. And yet it appears by elevating Crockett,
Speaker 3: by elevating the likes of AOC, you're seeing Bernie Sanders
Speaker 3: get back out there again.
Speaker 2: People don't want that.
Speaker 3: They do not want that. That's why Kamala Harris didn't
Speaker 3: do well she ran for president the first time. It's
Speaker 3: why she had a significant number of hurdles he had
Speaker 3: to attempt to get over. When she was sort of
Speaker 3: crowned the Democratic nominee after Buying dropped out because she
Speaker 3: had to constantly respond to all of her previous positions
Speaker 3: that were way too far to the left.
Speaker 2: People rejected it.
Speaker 3: And so hey, my thing is, as a former Republican strategies,
Speaker 3: I don't really advise a lot of candidates much today.
Speaker 3: If they want to go in that direction, I say,
Speaker 3: go ahead. You're going to allow Republicans to increase their
Speaker 3: majority in the House, especially if the economy continues to improve.
Speaker 3: There's a number of Senate seats that are going to
Speaker 3: be up for grabs. I imagine us improving them. You
Speaker 3: look at a lot of the down ballot races across
Speaker 3: the country. I see us maintaining and increasing our majorities
Speaker 3: in state legislatures on the House of sen aside. So
Speaker 3: if they continue to move in this direct direction with
Speaker 3: the leaders they've chosen, it is only going to be
Speaker 3: that benefit to us. And you cited something yesterday that
Speaker 3: I read on your ex account. I went through and
Speaker 3: read through all of this data that just came out.
Speaker 3: Younger men twenty five and under, younger voters writ large
Speaker 3: men of colors, particularly Hispanic, and a cohort of black
Speaker 3: men with you and I used to debate a lot
Speaker 3: about and I told your ass those numbers.
Speaker 1: Are going to move.
Speaker 2: They're all moving to the right. And so Ryan, this
Speaker 2: is this is I'll just really quickly before you.
Speaker 3: This is an incredible opportunity for the Republican Party to
Speaker 3: crystallize and cement which I would call a soft voters.
Speaker 3: We have to deliver, Ryan, because this could be the
Speaker 3: next ten to fifteen years of conservative dominance in this
Speaker 3: country if we take advantage of this opportunity.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the David Shores, you know, deep dive into
Speaker 1: the election. The crazy thing was that he not only
Speaker 1: did Kamala Harris lose, I mean she lost women, not
Speaker 1: white women under twenty years old, sorry, white women under
Speaker 1: twenty years old, but she lost non white men under
Speaker 1: twenty years old. And she only got twenty five percent
Speaker 1: of white men under twenty years old. Twenty five percent
Speaker 1: of white men. That's basically that kid Harry Swinson and
Speaker 1: his like five white friends. Like that's literally all they
Speaker 1: won of white men under twenty five years old. And
Speaker 1: it is the opposite Obama, where like, you know, I
Speaker 1: when I was, I mean when Obama ran, I think
Speaker 1: we're on the same age. I think I was like
Speaker 1: one of like only five people I knew under twenty
Speaker 1: five that were voting for McCain back then. So like
Speaker 1: it is the opposite effect. And is it that we've
Speaker 1: talked a bit about this in private, but is it
Speaker 1: just that they are so the Democratic Party is so
Speaker 1: anti mail and anti it's so effeminate, it's so hysterical
Speaker 1: all the time about everything, that it's really pushing these
Speaker 1: people away, in.
Speaker 2: Your opinion, I think so.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, I think we're seeing the destruction
Speaker 3: of masculinity not only within the Democratic Party but culturally
Speaker 3: written large. And you raised this question. I just replied
Speaker 3: to the Cardier family. I don't know if you've ever
Speaker 3: seen their YouTube videos. It's a four African American guys.
Speaker 3: I respond to a lot of political stuff they've blown up.
Speaker 3: And they posted something a couple of days ago, and
Speaker 3: I replied to it and I pretty much said, you
Speaker 3: have a lot of young men in this country right now.
Speaker 3: You look at the increase in violence and school shoes,
Speaker 3: all those are the crap with young men.
Speaker 2: There's something going on. Guns. You know, I'm a big
Speaker 2: gun guy.
Speaker 3: Guns have been around for for forever. We didn't have
Speaker 3: the type of crazy shit, and I hope I can
Speaker 3: say this on your show. We didn't have the stuff
Speaker 3: that we're seeing today just thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: I'm thirty four.
Speaker 3: Now, this was not a norm the type of violence
Speaker 3: that we're starting to see within certain pockets of our
Speaker 3: young men. So with that suggests to me, I'm not
Speaker 3: a psychologist. Young men are yearning for something. And when
Speaker 3: you're constantly telling them to be masculine as bad, when
Speaker 3: you're telling them that there is no need for men anymore,
Speaker 3: why because you have this less feminine woman, this strong
Speaker 3: woman who can do it all on her own.
Speaker 1: And that's not to say they're a boss, right.
Speaker 3: That's not to say that women should have their own
Speaker 3: careers and dreams for that, But the erasure of the
Speaker 3: traditional roles of men is leaving a lot of younger
Speaker 3: men wondering, well, what do I have to offer to
Speaker 3: society at all? If everything is constantly telling me nothing
Speaker 3: unless you're a man, which yeah.
Speaker 1: And also like and also the fact is that we
Speaker 1: had years of the future's female where every person who
Speaker 1: was a hero was a woman or some person, let's say,
Speaker 1: a non traditional masculine figure. If they were a man,
Speaker 1: they were they. And if you look at poling, you
Speaker 1: look at data. Young men they don't socialize, they don't
Speaker 1: have many close friends, they don't drink, they don't have sex,
Speaker 1: they don't smoke. They have a lot of the same
Speaker 1: life experiences of somebody significantly younger would have maybe a
Speaker 1: decade or two ago, and that I think affects it too.
Speaker 1: And also they'd have a shorter prospect of marriage because
Speaker 1: women don't. Women go to college at a hierate them
Speaker 1: men do. Women do not want to marry a man
Speaker 1: who earns less money than them. That is just the
Speaker 1: way that I mean. I call it whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call but that is the God's honest truth. And
Speaker 1: a lot of young men do not have the opportunity
Speaker 1: and the prospects of out earning a lot of women,
Speaker 1: and it has left them with like I don't know,
Speaker 1: I must be feelings about themselves, but they do. They
Speaker 1: have some sort of attitudes towards politics, which constantly puts
Speaker 1: them down in every which way.
Speaker 2: I think you're one hundred percent correct. You know, Trump.
Speaker 3: Sometimes he makes the sort of interesting in your windows
Speaker 3: about things that have far deeper meeting meetings, and I
Speaker 3: think he may even realize what he's saying it. And
Speaker 3: a year ago he talked about the eighties, and he
Speaker 3: talked about how in the eighties you had all this
Speaker 3: strong action heroes, all the guys you had, you know,
Speaker 3: the Wall Street, all the men who were just crushing it,
Speaker 3: making money, starting businesses.
Speaker 2: It was sort of this.
Speaker 3: Climate that embraced masculinity and being stoic, and being competitive
Speaker 3: and being aggressive, not in a negative way, of course,
Speaker 3: unless you have to, because I do believe there's nothing
Speaker 3: better than a calm but dam man when he needs
Speaker 3: to be able to protect himself in his family.
Speaker 2: But that's another conversation.
Speaker 3: But we had this period that embraced all of that,
Speaker 3: and even going into the nineties you saw a bit
Speaker 3: of it. And then slowly into the nineties early two thousand,
Speaker 3: you start to see this shift. And that's to your point.
Speaker 3: You start to slowly see less men going to college,
Speaker 3: more women going to college, more men becoming more depressed,
Speaker 3: men not finding themselves in long term relationships. And I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that guy shouldn't go have fun in their twenties.
Speaker 3: You should have all the women you want. Beautiful women,
Speaker 3: make a lot of money. That's part of being a guy.
Speaker 3: Going to do that. I think that is perfectly normal.
Speaker 3: But you started to see those things decline. Ryan, And
Speaker 3: so when you see Trump and other conservatives going into
Speaker 3: the podcast space talking to people like yourself, politicians, that
Speaker 3: is a lot of men are looking to people like you.
Speaker 3: I assume myself and others for answers in terms of
Speaker 3: what does it mean for me to be a man
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty five and beyond. I believe it's working hard,
Speaker 3: having a shitload of fun, making a lot of money,
Speaker 3: being responsible, having values, taking care of yourself. And if
Speaker 3: you can do those things, you can live a thriving life.
Speaker 3: B It's okay to be strong. When I'm talking to
Speaker 3: my guys and you and I talk, I cuss all
Speaker 3: the time. We talk about a lot of crazy stuff,
Speaker 3: and that's the way we talk. I don't want to
Speaker 3: hear some Democrats saying, well, oh, you're being too a
Speaker 3: great I'm a damn guy. Biologically I am supposed to
Speaker 3: be aggressive. I can check my aggression.
Speaker 2: But embrace those things.
Speaker 1: Ryan, No, I agree. You know what, when a lot
Speaker 1: of like the when a lot of the mass shootings happened,
Speaker 1: I thought about, especially the one that happened in the
Speaker 1: country concert back in twenty I think it was now
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen in Vegas, twenty nineteen in Vegas, and you
Speaker 1: saw all those pictures of those guys who were like
Speaker 1: hurdling their bodies on top of mostly women to protect them.
Speaker 1: I really got into thinking of like the role of
Speaker 1: manhood in the in the perspective of we men cannot
Speaker 1: create life, but we have to and it is part
Speaker 1: of our social contract then to protect it. Because we
Speaker 1: cannot create it, and we well, we cannot produce with
Speaker 1: our own body, we sacrifice with our bodies. We work
Speaker 1: a lot harder in terms of like hours, just at
Speaker 1: what the kinds of work men do are more physically demanding,
Speaker 1: and they break us down. But we do it upon
Speaker 1: ourselves because we you know, we it's weird. We we
Speaker 1: help build civilization that we cannot in innately just create civilization.
Speaker 1: We need women for that role, and it is that
Speaker 1: kind of marriage, for lack of a better word, of
Speaker 1: the two sexes that makes things prosperous and good. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think about these things a lot, and
Speaker 1: I think what happens if that is raw from you
Speaker 1: when it is told that you know, one, those kinds
Speaker 1: of jobs don't exist that much anymore, but two or
Speaker 1: they're harder to find, or two or you're being outpriced
Speaker 1: by low wage workers from the rest of the world
Speaker 1: or machines or whatever, and then you're kind of denied
Speaker 1: the life experiences, having sex, having partying, having friends, getting married,
Speaker 1: and having children. Those are huge, huge indicators of who
Speaker 1: you'll be and what you'll do. And I guess a
Speaker 1: lot of feelings you'll have about politics.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I think you're right again. This goes back
Speaker 3: to my point of you're running for helcyon day that
Speaker 3: is just no longer here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do hear you know somebody when top Gun
Speaker 1: came out, you brought that up. When top Gun came out,
Speaker 1: one of my employees, who's twenty three twenty two at
Speaker 1: the time, sat there and said to me, it made
Speaker 1: me miss an America I never lived through. And I
Speaker 1: was like, Wow, that's wild. That's a big thing because
Speaker 1: I did live through part of it, and I felt
Speaker 1: like you did too. I forgot that you hadn't done it.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about someone said to me
Speaker 1: they're thinking about running for office as a Democrat in
Speaker 1: a red state. And then I said, do you feel
Speaker 1: about trans women in men's sports or trying to trans
Speaker 1: women in women's sports? And they said to me, I
Speaker 1: don't care about it. And I go, that's the wrong answer.
Speaker 1: I don't Democrats stop just throwing themselves on grenades when
Speaker 1: it comes to these eighty twenty issues.
Speaker 3: You know, I got to tell you something, Ryan, I
Speaker 3: being from the South, I have a lot of being black,
Speaker 3: A lot of my family of Democrats. A lot of
Speaker 3: people I know who are white are Democrats.
Speaker 2: I don't know a single person who supports this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know a single person who supports this.
Speaker 3: And it's not about being a I'm not offended by
Speaker 3: anyone who's trans like that. It's like, I'm a If
Speaker 3: that's what you want to do, hey, more power to you.
Speaker 3: That's like, I'm not bothered by that. I'm very comfortable
Speaker 3: with who the hell I am, and I feel like
Speaker 3: when you are, you're not bothered by people who just
Speaker 3: are different. But I think we do have an obligation
Speaker 3: to protect I just had a daughter. If my daughter
Speaker 3: decided she wanted to place side or run track or
Speaker 3: do whatever other athletic have, whatever athletic experience, I want
Speaker 3: her to be rested, to have the assurance that she's
Speaker 3: going to compete against other girls, and it's going to
Speaker 3: be fair. A trans woman, biological male now identifies as
Speaker 3: a woman will still have the biological physical features and
Speaker 3: traits of a man. You cannot change that. No matter
Speaker 3: how much medication you're on. It doesn't matter with surgical
Speaker 3: procedures you have to alter your physical outward aesthetics, You're.
Speaker 2: Still the same.
Speaker 3: And so for most people, they say, look, this isn't
Speaker 3: about discriminating against anyone. It is going to always be
Speaker 3: an unfair advantage. How is that fair to the girl?
Speaker 3: And I think you have this cohort of democratic activists
Speaker 3: and some within the leadership ranks who just do not
Speaker 3: seem to understand that or want to acknowledge that, because
Speaker 3: to them, to say that some truth is to discriminate
Speaker 3: against someone, and I don't think that's the case at all.
Speaker 1: Pre and post election with all the Democrats, you know,
Speaker 1: was there a change the ones you are on TV
Speaker 1: with or are the ones you would meet in regular life?
Speaker 1: Was there is there a change of them saying something's wrong?
Speaker 1: Or are they like no, no, no, it's just our
Speaker 1: voters didn't show up and we were going to get
Speaker 1: it right next time and the screw was to go
Speaker 1: head first. Or is there like somebody like we should
Speaker 1: I mean your Van Jones saying some things are smart,
Speaker 1: but like most of them, I don't see it. Are
Speaker 1: they saying anything privately that you've heard.
Speaker 2: Van Van is?
Speaker 3: We were just on TV together and one of ours,
Speaker 3: he's so smart. Yeah, when he said, look, you know
Speaker 3: we're in trouble Chuck Roach. Do you know Chuck roacha
Speaker 3: from Texas Democratic Strategy?
Speaker 1: Yes, they do, Yeah, he is.
Speaker 3: And I love Chuck saying though Ryan and shout out
Speaker 3: to Chuck. He's been saying since last year, we have
Speaker 3: a problem. I've been on panels with Chuck where he's
Speaker 3: just saying he may not win this thing because the
Speaker 3: messaging is wrong. We're not communicating correctly on the right issues.
Speaker 2: We're too far to the left, l certain things.
Speaker 3: People don't support or believe this stuff, especially people of color.
Speaker 3: He's been saying that, and no one's been listening with
Speaker 3: that said, I'm not convinced Ryan that a lot of Democrats,
Speaker 3: particularly women the men, are different.
Speaker 2: A lot of the women, even when I speak with them.
Speaker 3: In green rooms, not all of them, but a lot
Speaker 3: of them, they don't seem to get why they lost.
Speaker 3: And what I hear is that people wouldn't support Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris because she's a black woman. And I'm sure there
Speaker 3: are some idiots out there who have those views that
Speaker 3: we all know that, but I don't think that's representative
Speaker 3: of most.
Speaker 2: People in this country.
Speaker 3: They will say that Donald Trump played into the fears
Speaker 3: of misogyny or racism, or they'll say, you know, black
Speaker 3: men don't want to support a strong black woman, or
Speaker 3: Hispanics are.
Speaker 2: Bigoted towards me. I mean, I've heard a lot of
Speaker 2: these things in my.
Speaker 3: Contra I have yet to hear a realization that, you
Speaker 3: know what, our policy positions are not in syncret where
Speaker 3: most people are who are to the center, even if
Speaker 3: they're to the left, they're to the center most people,
Speaker 3: and I have not heard that from anyone except for
Speaker 3: mostly the guys, and may be a handful of women
Speaker 3: two or three, but the vast majority. I've heard everything else.
Speaker 3: For why they lost then the realization that their policy
Speaker 3: positions are just wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, it's funny because that would because they would believe,
Speaker 1: they would believe that a black man would not vote
Speaker 1: for a black woman, but voted for a white woman.
Speaker 1: They voted for Hillary Clinton, and the same Hispanics voted
Speaker 1: for Barack Obama, so they voted for a black candidate before.
Speaker 1: They will not marry. They still are on this whole
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris around the most flawless campaign, imagine them. It's ludicrous,
Speaker 1: which is insane thing. I want to ask you one
Speaker 1: last question because I have you for a little bit
Speaker 1: more time. You work for the Trump administration. In Trump
Speaker 1: forty five yep, first term? What what do you seem
Speaker 1: different in this term? Is better? Is it worse? That
Speaker 1: you can see from the outside.
Speaker 3: I mean what I see different this time is Trump
Speaker 3: definitely has the experience he's already served once he stayed
Speaker 3: engaged and involved in the political process once he left office.
Speaker 3: And so you certainly see a heightened sense of awareness
Speaker 3: of the bureaucratic process and how to get things done.
Speaker 3: The one thing that I would say that I wish
Speaker 3: we would do better and we still have time. And
Speaker 3: I just said this one saying in last night I
Speaker 3: applaud Eline Musk and the individuals he's brought on via
Speaker 3: DOGE and what they're trying to tackle.
Speaker 2: I think it's important.
Speaker 3: Thirty six trillion dollars in debt bricks right now, spearheaded
Speaker 3: by China. They are pulling in more countries, more developing countries,
Speaker 3: which their objective is to weaken the dollar, which has
Speaker 3: been we can give for quite some time.
Speaker 2: As you already know, you've talked about this.
Speaker 3: So we have some global competitiveness in terms of our
Speaker 3: commerce and economy.
Speaker 1: We got to fix it.
Speaker 3: I think bringing in Congress, Republicans control the House, control
Speaker 3: the Senate, looking at the Clinton playbook of the nineties,
Speaker 3: in my personal opinion you may disagree, Ryan, I think
Speaker 3: is a smart, tactical way to do this. I think
Speaker 3: it gives Republicans the opportunity to go back to their
Speaker 3: districts to say that we're in charge, we're thinking about
Speaker 3: how to do this, We're thinking about the implications in
Speaker 3: terms of who we need to let go, why we
Speaker 3: need to let them go, how we're going to let
Speaker 3: them go. That feels confidence in my opinion. It also
Speaker 3: gives Republicans who want to contest Democrats next year an
Speaker 3: opportunity to say, I want to be a part of
Speaker 3: cost saving measures, the same cost saving measures that you
Speaker 3: have to do every single month in your own households,
Speaker 3: of balancing your own budgets. We're going to do that
Speaker 3: in Congress, and we're going to do it in a moved.
Speaker 1: The problem with the Elon stuff is that is that
Speaker 1: Congress is going to vote to give the money that
Speaker 1: Elon just can Uh, So we're not going to save
Speaker 1: almost anything. That's I mean, that's the big We've.
Speaker 3: Already done this though, Yeah Clinton, Clinton with New Gingridge.
Speaker 2: Let's not forget this.
Speaker 3: That was the only time we balanced a budget in
Speaker 3: this country was a Republican house working with a Democrat.
Speaker 3: There is a playbook here. You mean to tell me
Speaker 3: that Republicans who run everything can't balance a freaking budget.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I'm can they? Yes? Will they? No? I mean,
Speaker 1: like I mean, maybe can can they? Is there a
Speaker 1: path to do it? Yes, they'd have to get Democrats
Speaker 1: on board. But I besides, the only government program that
Speaker 1: I think Democrats would support cutting is DOGE. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine them wanting to cut the military. I mean, what
Speaker 1: would they cut. Honestly, what would Democrats want to cut?
Speaker 1: They're not going to touch anything related to any kind
Speaker 1: of health services. They would they would. I mean, the
Speaker 1: fact that we ended transgender feminists plays in Afghanistan is
Speaker 1: a war on democracy to them. Theyve literally they will
Speaker 1: fight for every kind of penny that we have in BS.
Speaker 3: But I think, though, Ryan, I think you could actually
Speaker 3: get this out of the House. I think the bigger
Speaker 3: fight will be in the Senate because, for obvious reasons,
Speaker 3: I think you could potentially get a couple of Democratic
Speaker 3: senators who are in very tight races Purple States to
Speaker 3: vote for something like this that's cost saving. I think
Speaker 3: the rest of it you probably have to do through
Speaker 3: some type of executive action. I think the administration would
Speaker 3: have to test us all the way to the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court some things. To your point, I don't think you'd
Speaker 3: get Democratic support. So then I would say to the President, look,
Speaker 3: this is the best we could do. It'll take us
Speaker 3: maybe three years to do it. We'll probably save a
Speaker 3: couple hundred billion dollars. These other things we cannot do.
Speaker 3: Let's try through EOS to accomplish it. We know we're
Speaker 3: going to be contested through the legal process. Let's go
Speaker 3: all the way to the Supreme Court to see how
Speaker 3: much leeway Scotus will ultimately give us. That's the way
Speaker 3: I would personally do this because right now what we're
Speaker 3: seeing these all of these courts are knocking this down.
Speaker 3: And I got to be honest, Ryan, if this goes
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court, were doge? I actually think they're
Speaker 3: going to say, we get what you're trying to do,
Speaker 3: but you have to get Congress involved in this becausion.
Speaker 2: It's pretty clear on the.
Speaker 1: On the power. No, I agree with you on that.
Speaker 1: I think that they'll probably say okay to some of
Speaker 1: the firings. I think they'll probably make the inroads on
Speaker 1: the firings and then basically nothing else the contracts and
Speaker 1: everything like that. That's what I personally think is that
Speaker 1: that's the guy the firing.
Speaker 3: But I think Trump could do this well. I think
Speaker 3: he could do with other Republican presidents after Clinton, Bill,
Speaker 3: George W. Bush, was not able to do and what
Speaker 3: Trump wasn't even focused on in his first term, and
Speaker 3: that is to leave a country where you have cut
Speaker 3: the budget Bill Clinton, and we never bring this up.
Speaker 3: That's why I keep bringing this up on Cinnam because
Speaker 3: Democrats saying, this is that poor and what we're doing.
Speaker 2: Clinton fired three hundred and seventy seven thousand people all
Speaker 2: across the government.
Speaker 3: They keep saying, well, you're letting it go people who
Speaker 3: care about their families.
Speaker 2: No one said this stuff in the nineties.
Speaker 3: This is ridiculous to me that there are arguments and
Speaker 3: then to the point on terrorists, and I want to
Speaker 3: bring this up.
Speaker 2: Okay, it is really really important.
Speaker 3: What Trump is attempting to do after have I hate
Speaker 3: the idea of notating I know a lot of Republicans like,
Speaker 3: go oh oh, free trade, free trade. The idea of
Speaker 3: free trade decimated the middle class, destroyed the middle class.
Speaker 2: This idea that we're going to have.
Speaker 3: Lower costs to produce goods as a net benefit to
Speaker 3: the American worker, and that's somehow going to elevate the
Speaker 3: rest belt.
Speaker 2: It didn't pan out. It didn't pan out.
Speaker 3: Because when manufacturers realize, hell, we can just shut down
Speaker 3: factories completely in the US for these cheaper wages. And
Speaker 3: so Trump's argument of saying, look, we're going to have
Speaker 3: equal tariffs to the tariffs that are placed on us
Speaker 3: by other countries will force some of these manufacturers say, well,
Speaker 3: wait a minute here, we don't want to pay this,
Speaker 3: so let's bring these jobs back to the United States.
Speaker 3: Will it go back to pre ninety ninety level, probably not,
Speaker 3: but if a fraction of that, Ryan, just imagine over
Speaker 3: five to eight years what that will do to build
Speaker 3: back communities across this country. And I'm a bit disappointed
Speaker 3: that Trump has kind of been meandering on this issue.
Speaker 3: He'll give a little to this, say okay, we're going.
Speaker 2: To back off.
Speaker 3: No, you have got to get these jobs back. What
Speaker 3: the hell happens, Ryan, when China invades Taiwan, or China
Speaker 3: does something crazy and we have to rely on China
Speaker 3: for manufacturing, or they take over Taiwan, and Taiwan is
Speaker 3: very critical for Chips as we know, and they say, well,
Speaker 3: we're not going to just we're not going to sell
Speaker 3: to the US anymore. Too much of our manufacturing and
Speaker 3: production if you line on other people.
Speaker 1: So I totally this is my last episode. I'd just
Speaker 1: done this podcast. I just was on John Carney from Breitbart.
Speaker 1: If the Pentagon's out there and said we're only going
Speaker 1: to buy medicine Thailand, all that has made one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of America. Guess what we will be building Thailand
Speaker 1: al in America in a in a minute. I mean
Speaker 1: it will happen overnight. And then if they sat there
Speaker 1: and said, hey, let's make sure the government contract goes
Speaker 1: to Akron, Ohio, or you know, Detroit, or you know
Speaker 1: name some russ belltown has been destroyed by the WTO
Speaker 1: or NAFTA, you would have a Aspirin factory hiring workers
Speaker 1: in Akron, or in Allentown or in wherever, Detroit, Flint, wherever,
Speaker 1: and you would have jobs again in the blink of
Speaker 1: an eye, for a middle class and working class right.
Speaker 3: And Democrats have said, well, so you're advocating for higher
Speaker 3: prices with the potential promise of more jobs, And I
Speaker 3: would say, well, actually, I personally believe you a seer reset.
Speaker 3: I think products would ultimately start to drop based on competitiveness,
Speaker 3: because if you start having various manufacturers producing similar goods
Speaker 3: in the initial onset, you are going to have higher prices.
Speaker 3: I gotta be honest about that. But that's going to
Speaker 3: going to lower itself over time. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: basic economics. And so I just don't understand why we
Speaker 3: wouldn't advocate for this. And this is another thing. And
Speaker 3: I said this to a Democrat on sin in last week.
Speaker 3: I said, you guys talk so much about being this
Speaker 3: this great bastion for people of color.
Speaker 2: The democratic part of that.
Speaker 3: Is, I said, but you don't recognize how much the
Speaker 3: black middle class relied on manufacturing in this country.
Speaker 2: And that was not an answer. I said, this made it.
Speaker 2: So many communities that you.
Speaker 3: Say you advocate for that have never recovered Ryan, They've
Speaker 3: never recovered.
Speaker 1: Man, how you look at Gary, Indiana? Now? Who would
Speaker 1: want to live there? I mean? And that was like
Speaker 1: the it's but it's not. You're right, You're one hundred
Speaker 1: percent right. And on the prices thing, I can only
Speaker 1: think of who gives a shit? One we built, we
Speaker 1: buy toilet bowls for a million dollars for Iraq. And
Speaker 1: two I mean, but it's the truth we do. No
Speaker 1: one cares if the government spends money like that crap.
Speaker 1: And two if you just cut then taxes and you
Speaker 1: offer a tax because to these companies, and you make
Speaker 1: it and you cut regulations for these companies, they save
Speaker 1: money on the end, even if production costs are slightly
Speaker 1: higher and no one's going to buy a twenty five
Speaker 1: dollars think of aspirin. I mean, they're just now there's
Speaker 1: there's a limit on market prices. Businesses already charge the
Speaker 1: most they possibly can for what they're offering. They democrats
Speaker 1: don't know anything about economics, and I you know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm only on the edges, but I know more than
Speaker 1: they do.
Speaker 2: Where where can for.
Speaker 1: Me that that's so?
Speaker 3: Just quickly, I just want to say, so, yeah, I
Speaker 3: want us to figure out how we're going to save
Speaker 3: more with the government. Is it's impossible to continue moving
Speaker 3: in the direction that we are. I'm really really worried
Speaker 3: about bricks, and not even just bricks, even the European
Speaker 3: Union to say, well, why does a dollar have to
Speaker 3: be the world currency?
Speaker 2: I mean, Ryan, when this stuff happens, and it's going.
Speaker 3: To happen, we're not even prepared for this. And and
Speaker 3: again on the tariffs front, yes, it is a strategic tool.
Speaker 3: Do I think it would ultimately be long standing?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: But I would I would advise a president, you have
Speaker 3: got to stay firm on this to get some manufacturing
Speaker 3: back into this country. It would be a revitalization of
Speaker 3: American workers that we have never seen, or we haven't
Speaker 3: seen I would say in probably thirty forty years. There's
Speaker 3: an opportunity to do it now. I just don't think
Speaker 3: it's going to happen, and that's disappointing to me.
Speaker 1: Sher Michael. This is about your Mia and Carroll's favorite
Speaker 1: person and seeing it, and she tells me all the time,
Speaker 1: She's like, sure Michael's on. You got to turn on
Speaker 1: the TV. Cher Michael. Where can people go to follow
Speaker 1: you on social media?
Speaker 2: You can follow me.
Speaker 3: On Instagram, Sure Michael, underscore, I think, and on X mister,
Speaker 3: Sure Michael. Check out our new streaming platform we the
Speaker 3: free WTF dot tv. If you like guns, you like action,
Speaker 3: orient the content, it is a place for you. We're
Speaker 3: growing really, really well. So I'm excited about what's to
Speaker 3: come for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for on this podcast, Sir Michael.
Speaker 1: Thank you, bro.
Speaker 2: Proud of you man. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Hey, we'll be right back after this. So on last
Speaker 1: week's show, I promised you just started a question to
Speaker 1: answer part of the where I'll be taking questions from
Speaker 1: my listeners and answering them on air. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you want to be part of the Q and
Speaker 1: A Question. So they ask me anything, well, I'll talk
Speaker 1: about stories, policy, data, anything. Email me Ryan at numbers
Speaker 1: Game podcast dot com. That's plural, Ryan at numbers Game
Speaker 1: podcast dot com and I could be answering your question
Speaker 1: next week. So my first question I want to do
Speaker 1: when they ask me anything segment. It comes from a
Speaker 1: guy named Scott. He says, Hi, Ryan, my name is Scott.
Speaker 1: I'm in my mid thirties. I consider myself a principled
Speaker 1: and pragmatic conservative, open a compromise on almost anything if
Speaker 1: it means progress in the right direction. My questions on
Speaker 1: social Security. I know it's not electorally possible to campaign
Speaker 1: on reforming social security right now, but I'm wondering what's
Speaker 1: the numbers say about the sentiment among millennials and Gen
Speaker 1: xers towards reforming social security and the near certainty that
Speaker 1: it will not be available for us in its current
Speaker 1: form by the time we reach retirement age. And if
Speaker 1: those numbers don't exist, why not, and what might change them? Okay,
Speaker 1: that's a great question, Scott. It's a lot, but I'll
Speaker 1: try to answer it pretty quickly and intact. First, the
Speaker 1: idea of the Social Security is like there's a constant Social
Speaker 1: Security that basically this money goes into a lock box,
Speaker 1: it builds interests, and then we use it from the
Speaker 1: money that we get and we work towards it. We
Speaker 1: work towards social securities. What you'll hear, that's not really true. First,
Speaker 1: there is no lock box. The idea of a lock
Speaker 1: box has been floated for decades. Al Gore was made
Speaker 1: a part of one of his main campaign themes back
Speaker 1: in the year two thousand that he created a trust
Speaker 1: fund to increase the amount of revenue basically either through
Speaker 1: interest or through savings or through the market or something
Speaker 1: or other. At the time, we were running about one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty to two hundred billion dollars year surplus
Speaker 1: with Social Security. That was a big missed opportunity. It's
Speaker 1: still presented in Congress idea this a lock box Republican
Speaker 1: Tim Wahlberg, Republican from Michigan, is proposed that I think
Speaker 1: last last Congress. But there's no lock box for Social
Speaker 1: Security to invest it wisely, so that way people can
Speaker 1: cash out and it can make its own amount of money.
Speaker 1: Australia does this by the way. Australia puts their money
Speaker 1: into investments in their mineral program and it's a multi
Speaker 1: trillion dollar retirement fund that they have successfully done. There
Speaker 1: is a Social Security Trust Fund which is separate from
Speaker 1: the government's general funds, but it's not reinvest in the
Speaker 1: way that it could be to make it more solvent. Secondly,
Speaker 1: in nineteen sixty the Supreme Court ruled in Flemings versus
Speaker 1: Nestor that individuals have no contractual or property rights when
Speaker 1: it comes to social security, meaning the government has every
Speaker 1: right to alter and suspend benefits at any time for
Speaker 1: individuals by their own will. You have absolutely no right
Speaker 1: to it whatsoever. You're not paying into it. It is
Speaker 1: a tax program. Ronald Reagan mentioned this in the Time
Speaker 1: for Choosing speech, if you've ever listened to it, he's
Speaker 1: talking about that that case. But unlike Medicare and Medicaid,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of solutions for social security. I mean
Speaker 1: social security is Medicare and Medicaid are very very complicated.
Speaker 1: Social Security is not as complicated, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of people with a lot of different ideas, from creating
Speaker 1: wealth funds to reducing benefits on high earning senior citizens
Speaker 1: like oprah winfree why does she get a Social Security check?
Speaker 1: Increasing tax thresholds increase in the retirement age. But your
Speaker 1: question was not how do young people feel about social security?
Speaker 1: I did not know this before I look this up,
Speaker 1: But according to more than one pole for the Harris
Speaker 1: Poll in twenty twenty four, God is not alone. Millennials
Speaker 1: are the generation that are the most worried about social
Speaker 1: security and the solvency of social Security. Now, Millennials are
Speaker 1: some people still think that we're eighteen, but we're in
Speaker 1: our early thirties to our early forties. Now percent of
Speaker 1: millennials think that social Security will be in solvent by
Speaker 1: the time that they received retirement age. Thirty six percent
Speaker 1: of millennials believe that they will not get a dime
Speaker 1: of social Security by the time they retire. A poll
Speaker 1: by Gallup found that millennials are the most pessimistic about
Speaker 1: collecting social security. Thirty seven percent say they don't believe
Speaker 1: that they'll receive it when they retire, so matches basically
Speaker 1: thirty six and thirty seven percent between the Harris Pole
Speaker 1: and the Gallup hole. One in three millennials do not
Speaker 1: think that it's going to be there. That's a lot
Speaker 1: for a very big generation. The most popular idea over
Speaker 1: all people for changing Social Security is increasing taxes on
Speaker 1: high income individuals. That's actually not the most popular idea
Speaker 1: among millennials. Only thirty nine percent of millennials favor increasing
Speaker 1: taxes on the rich to pay for Social Security, either
Speaker 1: because they see that their highest income years are ahead
Speaker 1: of them and they think maybe I'll be rich by then.
Speaker 1: But that's a big, big reason why seniors are the
Speaker 1: most favor of increasing taxes to pay for Social Security,
Speaker 1: which is not that surprising. A study by ARP and
Speaker 1: the Chamber of Commerce looked at the idea of a
Speaker 1: large package of trade offs, that being basically raising taxes,
Speaker 1: raising the payroll tax by one percent, reducing benefits on
Speaker 1: high income people, and that really brought support among everybody.
Speaker 1: Eighty three percent of millennials favored this big, big trade off.
Speaker 1: So it's possible by the polling that they do favor
Speaker 1: somethingness that they're make it work electorally, it's much much
Speaker 1: more difficult. It's one of these issues have been tried
Speaker 1: for a long, long, long time, and I think the
Speaker 1: only way we're going to get there is one a
Speaker 1: crisis where they really can't pay for it, or two
Speaker 1: they're going to have to have Republicans and Democrats hold
Speaker 1: hands and jump up the cliff together and make a
Speaker 1: broad change that everyone has to sit there and deal with,
Speaker 1: and hopefully it's a smart one and we make the
Speaker 1: program solvent for the future, because it's a very important
Speaker 1: program as far as keeping seniors off the street and
Speaker 1: keeping them, you know, in their homes. But that's the
Speaker 1: only way I think we're going to do it. I
Speaker 1: think we're going to do it when there's a real crisis,
Speaker 1: when the rubber hits the road, or maybe in a
Speaker 1: moment where everyone just breathes and you have you know,
Speaker 1: AOC and Ted Cruise willing to work together. That's the
Speaker 1: only way I could sit there and see this though.
Speaker 1: I hope this was a good answer to your question.
Speaker 1: If you have more questions, please once again email me
Speaker 1: for next week. I would love to answer them and
Speaker 1: thank you again for listening to this podcast Episode twelve.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so so much. Please like and subscribe
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: See you next week.