PBD - Patrick Bet-David - HEATED Tax Debate With Sam Seder | PBD Podcast

March 23, 2023 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

02:00:18

HEATED Tax Debate With Sam Seder | PBD Podcast | Ep. 250

PBD Podcast Episode 250. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Sam Seder, Adam Sosnick and Vincent Oshana. Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: https://masterworks.art/pbdpodcast Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. See important Masterworks disclosures: masterworks.com/cd 0:00 - Start 8:38 - Should Investors Pay The Consequences For The SVB Collapse? 25:49 - Banks To Get 2 Trillion Dollars From Fed 33.21 - HEATED Tax Debate With Sam Seder 1:12:04 - Is America The Greatest Country? 1:38:01 - Putin Acting Like An Excited Teenage Girl 1:48:28 - Sam Seder calls out Elon Musk 1:51:17 - Sam Seder slams Jordan Peterson 1:55:45 - Sam Seder criticize Jimmy Dore Subscribe to The Majority Report's YouTube channel: http://bit.ly/3n5Cy8G Become a member of The Majority Report with Sam Seder: http://bit.ly/3n8rbgd Follow Sam on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3lz4JMS Follow The Majority Report on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3ZcM0Vf Listen to The Majority Report on iTunes: http://bit.ly/40favlZ FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/ Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/ Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did you ever think you would make your way?
	You want to be fussy on some like a chick, sweet victory?
	I know this life miss for me.
	Yeah, why would you pat on Goliath when we got pet taved?
	Value payment, giving values contagious.
	This world of entrepreneurs, we can't no value to hated.
	I didn't run, homie, look what I become.
	I'm the one.
	Okay, so today's guest, Sam Cedar.
	A lot of you guys were asking to have him on after we had Kyle Kolinsky on, Pac-Man on, all these guys on.
	They said, why don't we get Sam on?
	Sam runs a show called The Majority Report with Sam Cedar.
	He's got a big YouTube channel, 1.2 million, 24 million subscribers.
	We just found out he was a big banker at Goldman Sachs.
	Huge.
	Hardcore.
	Huge.
	But he does have a bear.
	You do have a good story.
	Maybe you'll share that with the audience, what happened.
	We'll get into that here in a second.
	So thanks for being on the podcast.
	My pleasure.
	Thanks for having me down here.
	So we got a lot of things going on right now.
	Just yesterday, if you just bought the Wall Street Journal today, this is what the opening story is on the cover of it.
	Fed boosts rates amid bank turmoil.
	Powell calls financial sector sound but stresses oversight.
	The concern becomes whether they're saying they're going to protect depositors, what everybody's talking about, depositors, depositors, depositors.
	Will they protect the banks or not?
	We don't know.
	We'll talk about it.
	Maybe people will have some opinions on it.
	Sam, if you don't mind for the audience that doesn't know you, maybe share a little bit about your background.
	I've been doing a podcast YouTube for, well, and I was first in AM Talk Radio starring about 18 years ago.
	Prior to that, I was a writer, comedian, director in showbiz and sort of stumbled into talk radio on Air America radio and grew up in Worcester, Mass.
	And that's, I like the Red Sox.
	How did that happen?
	How did it happen from going from acting, from comedy, from writing to it was a total fluke.
	I mean, as a kid, I was involved in government.
	Like I did an internship in D.C. and in the Connecticut State House, and I was a government major, and I was involved in municipal politics in Worcester, Mass when I was in high school.
	But I also had a dual track of like doing sort of theatery stuff.
	And when I left, I went to law school for a year, left to do comedy with a buddy of mine.
	And then about 14 years later, Janine Garoflo, who I was friends with, said she had this opportunity to do political talk radio in the run-up to the 2004 election.
	And I just thought, I'll do it for six months and get back to show business.
	And I enjoyed it.
	And so during that time, I got married.
	And my wife got pregnant.
	And so I decided that's what I would stay.
	I mean, I still did some show business stuff probably as late as 2012.
	And I'm still a voice on Bob's Burgers, which is a cartoon, but that is just sort of.
	What are you doing, Bob's Burgers?
	I'm Hugo.
	I'm a couple of characters.
	That's cool.
	What's a bigger passion?
	Politics or entertainment?
	I mean, they can kind of collide, but what's movies, shows, actors?
	Oh, I would say politics are probably more of a passion for me.
	I mean, you know, I had fun in the entertainment world, and I do have a little bit like I see with my friends who have all been, not all, but many, very successful.
	And I like their lifestyle.
	But I find politics more stimulating.
	And I interview a lot of like on my show, policy experts, authors, historians.
	And so it's like every day I get paid to come in and learn something new.
	And I like that.
	Did you ever have like, I'm going to go into politics or is it more, you know, doing a show?
	There were times where I thought about it.
	I mean, there were times where I thought about it as a kid, maybe.
	Not enough money in it.
	What was the reasoning to say I'm not going to do it?
	Was it just like I'm more going to be from the outside than the inside?
	No, I think it was, you know, the, you know, I did a lot of like political stuff in college and I felt like on some level it was a little bit constraining.
	But there are times I've contemplated it.
	Since you're in politics pretty actively now, on the political spectrum, where would you say that you identify?
	Not the current form of identification with the he-she-wee, they them like political spectrum.
	If there's a football field, where do you stand?
	Like 50-yard line, left, right?
	I'm definitely of the left without a doubt.
	How far left?
	You know, I don't, I don't know.
	I mean, within the context.
	Are you in the red zone?
	Are you?
	Are you near the goal line?
	Are you closer to the 50?
	You know, I don't know.
	I don't really think about it too much in those terms, to be honest with you.
	I mean, I think that like I think a genuine socialist would say I'm certainly not a socialist.
	I don't know, you know, but I have no problem with how people identify me in that way.
	I mean, I'm really more interested in a set of policies and really ultimately just the outcome of what will create the best outcomes for the most amount of people.
	For me, that's, and, you know, there's a couple of different ways of saying that, but that's basically what it boils down to me.
	As a kid, who was your guide?
	Like, if you were to say, this is the book that influenced me, this is the guy that I liked, the way he spoke, you know, this is the TV guy or the president or the politician, or who was your guy?
	I would say I was very moved by the autobiography of Walter Mondale.
	I'm joking.
	Mondale.
	You like firing guy.
	You like landslides?
	You know, I was a big, like, I really liked Clint Eastwood movies when I was a kid.
	I mean, I didn't really realize much about him, the person, but I like those.
	I like the spaghetti westerns and stuff like that.
	I guess what I'm asking is, you know, more because you said you were in politics in high school, like you were interested in government from earlier on.
	What was a source of inspiration?
	Was there somebody you looked up to?
	Was it kind of like, like, if you and I were in high school together in 10th grade, who was Sam?
	I think people thought I was a little bit nerdy.
	People thought you were a little nerdy.
	Yeah.
	Did they think you would go into Hollywood and act or no?
	I think I got like voted class clown.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	That makes three of us.
	Yeah, I think I did.
	Yeah.
	But I also, you know, I was working for the Worcester Charter Commission at the time, which was starting to reassess how they were going to apportion votes in the city.
	And so I don't know.
	I tend not to have like heroes per se.
	I don't find that healthy.
	Really?
	No, I don't think so.
	I think people get too caught up in the personalities of politicians and really sort of miss what is actually going on.
	No heroes as a kid.
	You didn't have any heroes.
	You didn't like He-Manned.
	You didn't see Rocky.
	Well, Rocky would have been what?
	19.
	Yeah, Rocky when I was a kid.
	I was a kid.
	You must have had Larry Bird on your list.
	Come on.
	Larry Bird.
	Let's get real here.
	I mean, we're going to go sports.
	Like Bird, I loved Bird.
	And I was a fan of Mikael and Parrish as well.
	I got very excited about Russ Francis on the Patriots and Bobby Orr on in hockey.
	But, you know, I remember, I'm not going to say his name, but I met a guy I was a fan with on the Red Sox in person.
	And I was like, I wish I had met him because in person, I'm just not that impressed.
	I like what he does on the field.
	Does he kind of look like you?
	Who, the?
	The guy you're saying that because there's a Mets guy that looks like you.
	No, I know he was a.
	No, I know he didn't look like you.
	I thought you were talking about the...
	Okay, anyways, very cool.
	I met my father that way.
	Dad?
	That's what you're saying.
	Very cool.
	So, okay, that sounds good.
	Let's go into the Silicon Valley Bank story.
	What do you think is going on there?
	And do you think it's the end of it?
	Obviously, yesterday Powell came out.
	A lot of people didn't think if he's going to increase interest rates or not.
	Is this guy going to do it?
	Is he not going to do it?
	You know, it's not a good time to do it.
	Maybe take a break for a month or two.
	You know, we're seeing what happened with Silicon Valley bought a, I don't know, a 10-year bond for $100 billion at 1.7% thinking they're going to make it.
	And then bam, they have to sell that for some $20 billion.
	And, you know, depositors are afraid.
	Those below a quarter million, which is a small percentage, whatever the number was, 3%, they're covered.
	But the ones above, everybody's coming and saying, we got to bail the depositors out.
	What are your thoughts about what's going on with Silicon Valley?
	Well, there's a couple of different issues.
	I mean, and you can sort of go down the line.
	The biggest issue is that in 2017, the Trump administration, the Republicans, and with some corporate Democrats as well, basically rolled back the regulations that were required for banks like SBV.
	It used to be if you had $50 billion worth of holdings as a bank, you were subject to the Dodd-Frank requirements about capital to keep the bank safe.
	And that would have also come along with like sort of subsidiary regulations and regulators being there to make sure that you can't make stupid decisions like that.
	I mean, they made some very stupid decisions that people involved in banking could take issue with, assuming that interest rates were always going to stay low, whatever.
	The point of regulations like that, where you take more or less a meat cleaver and you say is that people can make stupid decisions, but we're going to be here to protect the system and the depositors.
	The other thing that was going on there with all the depositors had all this other money, this is a kickback situation.
	There's no doubt about it, right?
	Because you, you know, anybody with $251,000 cash knows that there is a $250,000 FDIC limit.
	And if you're putting half a million dollars in there or billions of dollars in there, you're getting something from the bank in return, which is low-cost business loans or like 0% mortgages.
	I'm sure you run into this.
	You put your money into some big, you know, investment bank.
	You're getting kicked back.
	You're getting a 0% mortgage.
	So you go out, buy a $13 million house.
	You don't have to pay anything for that money.
	You keep your money in a CD and you're still, you're making money off of that $13 million house essentially that you bought.
	Because you've just got that money borrowed cheap.
	And if they're going to do that, I mean, look, to each their own, if they're going to do that, they need to pay the consequences.
	They took a risk.
	I'm going to put my money in an uninsured bank because I'm getting back all this like, you know, and sometimes I think it was like they did this with their businesses and then they get the personal mortgages, which is also, it's just a kickback.
	So I say we don't bail those people out because we have the rules and these are the rules.
	Now, a lot of these people are big names.
	They have the ability to go on to every show that exists on TV and whatnot and claim that this is going to be a systemic risk.
	But I don't believe that, frankly.
	And so, you know, I think what we need to do, and nobody's talking about it, is put the regulations back.
	We have now proof that it's dangerous to have rolled back the regulations on these mid-sized banks.
	And so, you know, the deafening silence about it is amazing to me.
	So, Sam, let me ask you based on what you just said.
	So, obviously, we know the guys below quarter million, they're covered, but it's a small percentage with Silicon Valley Bank.
	It's not like it's a big number.
	The people above quarter million with these guys that are coming out saying, hey, we got to take care of these depositors because if we don't, you know, all these other smaller communities and regionals are going to get hit.
	These 27 regionals, we have one is gone out, it's 26.
	They're going to remove their money and they're going to put it in the big banks.
	This is one of the ways to nationalize it.
	And we're going to go through only five banks and all this stuff.
	So the people above the quarter, you're straight up saying if you had more than a quarter, a million, anything you had, let's not back them up.
	Let's not protect them.
	They lost the money.
	I think there is that danger that you talk about that there could be a run on these other banks.
	I think it's overstated, but I think there is a danger.
	And I think the way that you deal with that is you come out and you say, we're going to make sure that we're going to subject these 23 other mid-sized banks to the kind of regulation that we impose upon the bigger banks so that the security you feel with those bigger banks, we're going to provide that security for you by regulating and making sure that they have the capital requirements that they need to protect your money.
	Okay.
	So then go to, if I give you like a cause of to say it's this person's fault, let's go through rankings of it, okay?
	Below quarter million, they obviously didn't do anything wrong there.
	The guys above a quarter million dollars in savings.
	Then you have the people that own shares in the company.
	They're shareholders of the company.
	Then you have employees that work for Silicon Valley Bank.
	Then you have the employees where the companies who banked with Silicon Valley Bank, where the payroll is stuck and they can't pay the payroll.
	Then you have the politicians coming up with the guidelines, the regulations.
	If you were to put the blame on those folks and who to take care of, who not to take care of, who would you put at the top?
	Who would you put at the bottom?
	Well, I mean, I don't know how to apportion blame amongst those things, but I can tell you this, the but for in that situation is clearly the lack of regulation, right?
	I mean, I don't know who screwed up in all of those different levels, but I know that if the regulation, if they were subject to those same capital requirements, none of that stuff would have happened in the first place.
	Yeah, you know, it's kind of tough to debate that because I've been in insurance business for 20-some years, right?
	You don't see a lot of insurance companies going out of business because insurance companies' capital requirements are a lot higher than banks' requirements.
	Banks can be a little bit more.
	We saw what happened in 08 with the whole no income, no assets.
	Hey, Sam, how much money you made last year?
	72 grand.
	Sam, one more time.
	How much money did you make last year?
	$72,000.
	Sam, one more time.
	How much money did you make last year?
	$158.
	Okay, great.
	How much do you have in a bank, Sam?
	Hey, I got $28,000 in the bank.
	One more time.
	How much you have in the bank?
	$380,000.
	Perfect.
	No income, no assets.
	And then boom.
	The ninja loans.
	Ninja loans, right?
	Everybody takes it.
	So there's a part of that that I agree with.
	The whole ninja loan, you know, it was never supposed to be for low and middle income families.
	The ninja loan, if I recall, came from Australian bank.
	It was something they were using and we brought it to the States.
	And it was supposed to be more for like the, you know, the clients at the Goldman and the higher income.
	And then they said, let's launch this to everybody out there in the streets.
	And that's where they took a hit.
	You're a bank loan officer, right?
	Like, I mean, there was a fiduciary responsibility by the person in that scenario there who kept saying like, you know, put the number up because I come in for a mortgage.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I'm not a financial whiz.
	You know who we had here on the podcast four months ago?
	Very uncomfortable podcast.
	It was with the former CEO of WAMO.
	I don't know if you remember WAMO, Washington, Michigan.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	And that thing was a behemoth of a bank, right?
	$330 billion.
	I think, as far as I know.
	Well, Carrie Killinger, by the way, he was kind enough to come in.
	I didn't know what he thought we were going to talk about.
	I banked with WAMO for years and I loved WAMO.
	I thought it was a phenomenal experience.
	You'd go there, you know, the customer service, the way you would feel like you're not out of bank.
	There's not a window where you feel like, hey, you can't shoot us.
	Everybody was open.
	There was a relationship thing that was going on.
	I said, what caused this?
	You know, why get so reckless about it?
	What made you think some of these things you were doing with the amount of money that you had where you ended up selling it for Chase?
	So I guess, and I don't know how much you follow the stories.
	Obviously, you're a guy that's been following every story every day because this is what you do for a living.
	What have we learned from 08 that we're not repeating today?
	Maybe even the way Janet Yellen and the Fed is handling the bailout model, their carnal different thing.
	What's different about it today than it was in 08 in your eyes?
	Well, I mean, the situation is very different too.
	I mean, I think, you know, the amount of leverage that we're talking about in this system is just not nearly the same.
	And a lot of those, a lot, you know, Dodd-Frank eliminated a lot of the more risky stuff.
	But, you know, again, I can tell you more importantly, what we didn't learn is when we rolled back those regulations.
	You know, like you and I, we could go through that whole thing.
	We could spend six months examining every aspect of what happened there.
	And we might come up with a different, you know, who was really responsible.
	Or there could be shared responsibility.
	But the bottom line, this is why you need regulation.
	Just like you said, in the insurance industry, you have a tighter regulation on this stuff.
	You don't allow for people to come in and play fast and loose with all this stuff, to gamble like they're at the racetrack, and then come for a bailout from us.
	Because look, the bottom line is I know it comes from FDIC fees, but who's going to get those fees?
	It's going to be, it's, and actually, the fees that are going to be imposed upon people to bail out guys like David Sachs and all these other, like, you know, right-wing so-called libertarian, they're suddenly libertarians looking for the government handout.
	But the people who are going to be paying off these fees more than anybody else are lower-income people because they are stickier with banks.
	They don't have the opportunity to go around.
	They don't have the time.
	They don't have the inclination, the savvy to go around and shop around banks where they're going to get lower fees.
	Maybe they don't have the same amount of deposits in there.
	So they're not going to be.
	So that's who's going to get stuck with this bill.
	I want to continue with this, but let me go to our sponsors real quick.
	Okay.
	And this is so interesting with the sponsor, obviously, with all this stuff that's going on.
	I've been in the financial industry now for 22, 23 years.
	And for the longest time, I was very skeptical about alternative investments.
	I was like, no, stocks, real estate, this is kind of what you look at.
	And you saw the last few years, more and more people are looking at alternative investments.
	Masterworks, what it does is it allows you to buy shares in high-end art.
	Maybe you can't buy a $5 million bank C or a Picasso painting, but you can buy a share into it.
	They're allowing folks to do just like blue chip art to invest into.
	I think when you look at the numbers last year, art prices rose on average 29% per bearing.
	Everything you do with these guys is gone through the SEC and it's broken into shares.
	So it's the same exact way you buy stocks as you do through Masterworks.
	If this is of interest to you and you have a small percentage of your portfolio, you want to put and consider into alternative investments.
	You may want to look into Masterworks.
	Rob, if we can put the link below their website, let me read their website what we have here.
	Masterworks.art forward slash PBD podcast.
	One more time, masterworks.art forward slash PBD podcast, but we'll also put the link below for you to join.
	So let's go back to this on what we can find default with.
	We can say, you know, we need more regulation is what we need.
	We can say, you know, it's the greedy banker's fault.
	You know, we can say, hey, why are you being so reckless?
	You're putting all your money in the bank.
	You should never put all your money in the bank, right?
	You got to kind of diversify and put a little bit more money on it.
	There's also something called sweeps.
	And everybody who's involved in a business knows this.
	I'm sure you know this, that there are third parties out there who will distribute those $250,000.
	They have that.
	They had those money there for a reason.
	And I think it was kickbacks.
	I think it's probably going to come out in a couple of months after more investigation.
	But again, we don't have to spend our time worrying about who's to blame of those individuals.
	Maybe they all are.
	No, this is where I was going.
	How old were you when you bought your first house?
	Do you remember?
	I was, let's see, it was in 98.
	Okay, so you got 25.
	Perfect.
	So 25 years old.
	What was the interest rate when you got in 98?
	Do you remember?
	God, no.
	I was above 6.
	I was an actor.
	I didn't, I just, you know, I had a business manager at the time.
	I was making a lot of money.
	I was just like.
	Yeah, you were living the drinks.
	Exactly.
	But don't worry about the interest rate.
	Can you go to 1998 average 30-year mortgage?
	I don't know.
	Just Google it and see what the number was.
	I imagine it was probably around.
	That's what I'm thinking.
	Yeah, I'm trying to see what it was.
	Okay, 6.91.
	Yeah, very similar.
	There you go.
	Okay, 6.9.
	By the way, I think that's where it needs to be for about a decade.
	I think the number needs to be there.
	And if you ask me, quite, if you ask me, I think we need to go a little bit more old school in the way we buy stuff, right?
	Meaning, how much down payment you got?
	I got this much down payment.
	Great.
	You know, and now you may disagree with that and say that's not going to be fair to low- and middle-income families, but I think there's part of it also the guidelines to buy stuff has decreased.
	The guidelines to lend out money has decreased.
	You know, money became so cheap for such a long time where people were going out there getting money left and right.
	What are your thoughts on that?
	I know on mortgages, no, it's a lot stricter than it was, let's say, 15, 20 years ago.
	I mean, it's much harder.
	You need to provide much more documentation.
	And the loan companies are far more stricter.
	I mean, they're not quite where they were in the wake of the financial crisis, but they're still pretty tight.
	I mean, the problem I have with the raising of the interest rates is basically what Jerome Powell says every time he does it, which is we need to get more people unemployed.
	And that's, I mean, look, we can argue as to whether the Fed has the tools it needs to fight inflation in this instance.
	I happen to think, I happen to, you know, I don't even know if I agree so much or just like the Fed itself says that the inflation that we went through, only about 30% of it was a function of demand, right?
	The other, you had a significant portion of it was a function of logistics and like mismatch products and this and that with because of COVID, right?
	It wasn't a question that we didn't have the productivity or the capacity to meet demand.
	It was just that it was mismatched for a long time.
	You're sending shipping containers to places you had never sent it before to get them back is a lot more expensive.
	These things are starting to work through the system.
	Wages contribute a little bit because there has been some wage growth for the first time in decades, essentially.
	A lot of it is also maybe the plurality of it, this is based upon the Fed numbers, is basically just the corporations seeing the opportunity to raise these rates.
	And so the Fed comes in.
	They have one tool to deal with inflation, and that is, you know, they're a hammer, except for I'm arguing that it's not a nail that they're hitting.
	It's a screw.
	And they're doing this, in my estimation, as a way of weakening labor.
	They are going to kick a million people.
	How would you do it?
	How would I do it?
	Well, I would deal with it fiscally, or I would just wait.
	I would wait because you're starting to see the trends all move in the right direction in terms of inflation.
	And I would wait.
	So you wouldn't have raised the half of what they'd done.
	Maybe 2 half, whatever the number is.
	You mean the most recent?
	No, no, no.
	No, 20% or whatever's happened.
	Look at it today, right?
	Like they're worried about the banks.
	At the same time, they're like desperate to like, we need to kick a million, two million, three million people out of work.
	I mean, they're explicitly saying this.
	And so, you know, that does not make sense to me.
	Sam, a guy here, Scott Rodriguez just said, sorry, but 80% of the loans given the last three years only required 5% down payment.
	It was much harder to get a loan in the 90s.
	In terms of mortgages?
	Yeah.
	It's conceivable that it was harder to get a loan in the 90s.
	I'm comparing it to like the aughts.
	But I can tell you, I mean, like, I have some very close-ups.
	Do you think it's a better guideline to put a minimum 25% for anybody to buy a loan or no 5% down payment is fine?
	I mean, I think, I don't know if the number is 10% or 20%.
	I'd have to like read into see, you know, where we're talking about foreclosures, but we're not having a foreclosure problem right now.
	Not yet.
	Now, not yet.
	Because if he keeps raising the interest rates and decreasing the value of homes at this type of rapidity, you know, rapid rate, we might.
	But, you know, the way you avoid that is don't do that.
	So let me read this about what happened.
	This is an insider story.
	The Fed may provide as much as a $2 trillion in liquidity relief for banks after Silicon Valley collapse.
	JP Morgan says Chase estimates that the Federal Reserve may need to inject $2 trillion into the U.S. banking system after the collapse of three lenders last week.
	This would help prevent a run on deposits and address the scarcity issue in the U.S. banking caused by the U.S. Fed monetary policy.
	The Fed's bank term funding program, the BTFP, is an emergency loan mechanism that will allow banks to obtain liquidity by putting up their bond holdings as collateral.
	The Fed will accept the bonds at face value instead of their current market value.
	It has not been qualified by the Fed yet, but it is expected to be significant enough to cover all uninsured deposits in the U.S. JP Morgan estimates that this is going to be around $7 trillion, but suggests that the five largest banks are unlikely to use the program, which would bring the actual amount the Fed provides to closer to $2 trillion.
	Does this sound like a bailout to it?
	Yeah, of course it does.
	Why are those big five banks not taking the money?
	Because they have been subjected to the Dodd-Frank regulations and they haven't been able to get themselves in this type of situation.
	So to be clear, the Fed's raising rates this fast explicitly to make more people unemployed in this country.
	Explicitly to do that.
	That's explicitly their goal.
	Their goal is to reduce inflation.
	That's their first goal.
	No, no.
	That's not a byproduct.
	No, Look, it's not a byproduct any more than me like taking my hammer, slamming it on your hand and saying, oh, the byproduct that it hurts.
	Both of you are right.
	But Powell, when he was asked, if you remember to hear him, when he was asked, he says, you realize, and I think it was Kennedy that asked him, Senator Kennedy that said, hey, you realize what you're doing is to fix the economy, you have to lower the unemployment.
	And then what did he say?
	Powell said could be a cause of it, but that's not why we're doing it.
	It says, no, no, that's why you're doing it.
	And I know you're not a Kennedy guy because he's a Republican side, but he's like, no, no, that's exactly what you're doing.
	Everybody knows it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Republican, a Democrat.
	Anybody who's honest knows exactly that's what the plan is.
	But do you really think that's the plan?
	Do you really think the plan is?
	Explicitly the plan.
	I think he said today, by the end of 2023, we need to have a million people out of work.
	I mean, why would they do that if they know it's going to hurt the economy?
	Because they have one tool to deal with inflation, and that is to raise interest rates as a way of cooling the economy and cooling the economy.
	And frankly, I mean, this is the charitable view.
	I'm articulating the charitable view.
	And cool the economy means as a byproduct that you're going to kick people out of work.
	In my estimation, this is the first time we've seen any type of wage growth in decades, in decades, right?
	The wages versus productivity has been out of sync for decades.
	And I think, frankly, people don't want labor to have any power.
	You're seeing increased unionization.
	You're seeing increased work action.
	You're seeing people saying like, you know, I don't want to work in the country.
	Yes, I definitely think that's how Powell's playing politics in increasing.
	This is not politics.
	This is.
	But it is, though.
	Union is a form of your policies.
	Powell is one of the most powerful men in the world today.
	You know that.
	I know that, right?
	So when he moves the, he's controlling one of the most important knobs, right?
	Which is the rates.
	Without a doubt.
	Yeah.
	So, but I'm trying to think myself.
	Like, I'm trying to sit there and say, okay, you know, when they gave $1.7 trillion in, you know, relief, hey, we're going to do this.
	We're going to do that.
	Or during COVID, hey, we're going to give 2.1 trillion.
	We're going to send people this much of money.
	This, this, that.
	Hey, are they, all they're trying to do is they're trying to get people not to work, right?
	That's what they're trying to do.
	Are they really, or were they doing it because they're like, dude, I'm not letting you work from home, so I have to send some money to you if you're getting unemployed.
	And I just laid off how many people at the restaurants were crushed by COVID?
	Well, I got to kind of take care of you.
	But then what happened with the money?
	The money went into the rich because the low-income, middle-income doesn't know how to save money, and they spend the money.
	They're trying to make ends meet.
	So sometimes you think from the policies and you say, oh, they're trying to do something really bad.
	You think Powell has negative intentions or he just sees this as a.
	I don't I don't I don't think I don't I don't think any of this.
	I have a different perspective on how all this works.
	I don't think that Powell is sitting there going like it's going to negative.
	I just don't think that these people care.
	I mean, how do, look, look, we attacked Iraq, right?
	20-year anniversary yesterday or two days ago.
	By anybody's estimates, we killed hundreds, if not hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
	Why?
	At this point, this story we both aren't the same page on.
	We know what.
	Right, exactly.
	But how is it that that decision was made?
	They don't care about that human loss.
	And I don't think Powell, at the end of the day, really cares enough about the immiseration of millions of people.
	He thinks the most important thing for the stability of society is to save the bankers.
	Sam, do you think?
	I just disagree.
	Sam, do you think it was healthy for us to go on a 128-month economic expansion only to be disrupted by COVID?
	It would have continued into 100.
	You think it was healthy to have interest rates as low as we did for over 10 years?
	I mean, I think there's an argument that you could have crept them up slowly, up a couple of percentage points.
	But I was also told, listen, in the aughts, when I started this job.
	You know, you sound like a capitalist if you defend that.
	Well, I don't care what I sound like.
	I mean, during the aughts, I was told that the lowest rate of unemployment we can have in this country is 6%.
	If we have it lower than that, then the whole thing falls apart.
	Remember that?
	Of course.
	We were told that was the athletic, like nature only allows that.
	And then all of a sudden we can have more unemployment.
	I mean, less unemployment.
	We could have 3%.
	I mean, we are presented by, you know, these powers, ideas that happen that basically they're in a closed loop with just other people who have power and money and have decided that this is just sort of the natural state of being.
	And it's not.
	I just disagree with that premise.
	Okay, so, but let me go back to this.
	It's very important.
	I want to make this point.
	I want to ask you this.
	128-month expansion, is it fair to say during that period when rates were as low as they were, they benefited capitalists?
	They benefited someone's phone is, if you put such a phone as that from the mic, yeah.
	You know, it's typically Verizon.
	Whoever's Verizon, AT ⁇ T doesn't do it's only Verizon.
	But, you know, it's, it's, that benefited, that benefited the capitalist because money was cheaper, right?
	So to argue your argument saying, well, a true socialist would say, I'm not a socialist, but I am on the left.
	You're not for, you know, making it that easy for those guys, right?
	So money was so freaking cheap for so long that we have to pay a price for it.
	And now you're looking at the economy.
	It looked like everything was good, but a big part of it was fake, Sam.
	We had a lot of fake success the last few years.
	Well, I mean, look, I'm just measuring on, again, the way I view things is what's going to make things better for the most amount of people.
	And in terms of like, you know, it being in favor of the capitalists, I would also change our tax policy.
	So, I mean, I would claw some of that back, quite a bit of it back.
	What would you do?
	I would return to the tax policy when we had the greatest, sort of the widest economic expansion shared by more people as a percentage of our population than any other time in this country, which was in the 50s and the 60s.
	And I would return to the tax rates more or less there.
	So your top tax rate at that time was 90%, top marginal rate, for every dollar over $470,000 you would earn.
	So that would be equivalent to around $3 million today.
	I think we should return to that type of tax tax.
	You want it to go as high as 90% at the top marginal tax rate?
	At the top marginal tax rate.
	So understand, like that only kicks in with every dollar above $3 million.
	I hear you.
	And I mean, that's the famous Reagan situation where I think it was anything over $200,000 at that point.
	This might have been in the 40s, that he would only do two movies a year because he'd get paid $100,000 per movie, and then he wouldn't even do a third movie because he would only get 10% of the revenue because he, and he's like, fuck it, I'm not doing another movie.
	Yeah.
	So when Reagan started telling that story, you know who he was working for when he started telling that story, right?
	He was going around, I think it was working for GE, trying to convince people not to get Medicare for all.
	I mean, if Reagan could have gotten three movies, five movies, he would have done it.
	He was working with chimps.
	He would have been happy to do that for his career, believe me.
	Believe me.
	What's the top marginal tax rate right now?
	39%?
	What is it?
	I think 37, 39%.
	I will say this, though, just to finish up that Reagan story, I will say this to you.
	I remember being in LA and taxes, top line had hit whatever the all-in was, 57.5.
	I don't know what the number was.
	Around 57.5.
	No, you live in Brooklyn.
	So 57.5%, people are like, what the hell is going on here?
	There was this girl who was a top realtor in the San Fernando Valley area, one of the top realtors.
	Her picture was on all the benches.
	Everywhere you would go, you would see her.
	And she was one of the realtors making very good money.
	She's making half a million dollars of your income, doing good for herself, whatever the number was, $400,000, $500,000.
	One day, I stopped seeing her pictures on the seats.
	And I'm at Wood Ranch with my wife.
	And I said, hey, are you?
	You're the girl, right?
	She says, yeah, I am.
	She's with her husband and her two kids.
	I said, what happened?
	We haven't seen you lately.
	She says, it's so funny you ask.
	My husband and I made a decision that the moment taxes got so high, it was more important for me to be a stay home.
	It wasn't worth me working to pay this much in taxes.
	So there's a part of what he's saying.
	Yeah, whatever, whether he's going to do the movies or chance and all that stuff.
	But there's a part of it that kind of needs to be there.
	America would not have suffered by the lack of Ronald Reagan movies.
	And I would also want to be funny.
	No, but no, but I would also argue that like, I bet you, I guarantee you, there was no less houses that sold because that one particular broker stopped selling houses at a certain point.
	So go to it.
	So right now, you don't think that's a problem.
	I really don't.
	I mean, I think.
	To raise it to 90%.
	Yeah, no, I don't think that you're talking about is sort of the laugher curve, actually, right?
	Yeah.
	You know, the laugh.
	You love the laugher curve.
	You're a big fan of it, apparently.
	I'll tell you what I love about the laugher curve is that we had a perfect example of we had a almost like a perfect model of what happens with the laugher curve, right?
	Like the laugher curve argues that the higher the tax rate goes, the less inclined people are going to be to generate income.
	And then because they're generating less money, there's going to be less tax receipts collected by the government.
	Art Laffer was Sam Brownback's number one advisor in Kansas.
	Do you remember this when Brownback became governor?
	He basically gave over his entire tax structure to Art Laffer.
	They had such a, it destroyed the tax base in Kansas.
	It ended up destroying their entire education system.
	They had an amazing Kansas University.
	Brownback gets plucked out of Kansas and literally sent to be ambassador to Ether.
	You know what?
	They made him ambassador to Faith because they didn't want this guy around at all.
	The Republican-controlled Kansas legislature raised taxes back up because it had destroyed their tax receipts.
	The theory may sound good, but it doesn't work in practice.
	So are you on YouTube and Rumble or just YouTube?
	I'm on YouTube.
	I think we put it on Rumble.
	I think we're also on Twitch.
	All over the place.
	Okay, so let me ask you this question.
	If YouTube took their ad sense from 55 to 15, would you continue creating content?
	Yeah.
	You sure?
	Sure.
	You'd continue creating content.
	I wasn't doing YouTube for a long time.
	How do you make a living today?
	I have membership.
	I have membership that people pay.
	I get ad revenue from different places.
	Okay, so let's just say the membership that you get from Patreon or whoever it is.
	Okay.
	What if their fees went from them keeping 5% to 60% to 90%?
	Would you continue creating content?
	I mean, I would.
	I would probably have to cut back if there was that.
	Exactly.
	Well, but that's only because it's such a big change.
	No, but that's the part about incentives.
	Sam, so your audience gets to enjoy you.
	I'm not saying we'll cut the revenue for these businesses.
	I'm saying that the amount of- You have no choice, though, because you're paying these guys.
	You need the revenue.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not suggesting we cut revenue for businesses.
	What I am suggesting is after that revenue comes in and we divvy up and I have my net profits, then my taxes would go up.
	But I will say this, like if, let's say, the taxes went up on me personally, would I stop going on YouTube?
	No.
	So would you be able to scale it at the, how many employees you got working for you right now?
	I'm not talking about cutting revenue.
	I get that.
	How many employees are you working or working for you right now?
	We have payroll, I think like six or seven.
	Okay, you got six or seven.
	That's a small business you got there, right?
	Six or seven people.
	Okay.
	If all of a sudden AdSense went up, the fees for your Patreon, I don't want to offend you when I say Patreon.
	I don't know who you use.
	Whoever you use that's got your membership stuff that you got.
	We use Fans FM.
	Okay, there you go.
	That's a shout out to them.
	So Fans FM, Fans FM?
	Fans.fm.
	Fans.fm.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So if they raise.
	They take less than Patreon.
	If they take 50% all of a sudden, and they say YouTube says AdSense goes to 15%, would you be able to employ those six people?
	No, if my, well, I don't know.
	But probably.
	Maybe that's because you're rich.
	No, no, probably, probably not.
	But I'm not suggesting that we cut revenue for businesses.
	I'm suggesting that what is left over from revenue, if it's over $3 million that goes into the pocket of the owner of this enterprise, that $300 million and $1 gets taxed.
	Let's have fun with it.
	90 cents.
	Let's have fun with this.
	So here's a question for you.
	And I kind of know what your answer is.
	And I want to be clear on something.
	I'm doing this.
	I subscribe to this, not because I think that we need the money or that this is going to be a panacea in terms of how we would spend this money.
	But I see in this country a massive problem with wealth inequality and the commensurate political inequality that comes with it.
	We have wealth inequality in this country like we've never had before.
	I don't disagree.
	So there's not a disagreement there, but the solution is where we're going to disagree.
	So let's kind of process that together.
	Okay.
	So you know the whole thing.
	Like I remember when I first got out of the military and I went into the financial industry, it's 1999.
	I know nothing.
	It's 2000.
	I know nothing about it.
	The speaker gets up.
	Have you been noticing that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poor?
	I'm like, okay, my dad's at a cashier at a 99 cent store 15 years.
	My parents got divorced twice.
	I hope you said to that guy, you ain't seen nothing yet.
	Wait to 20 years.
	But you're right.
	Completely out of it.
	But you're right, though.
	But why is the question?
	So here's a question for you.
	So you're saying above 3 million, you know, that money that the owner is going to keep, we got in tax on 90%.
	Fine.
	Okay.
	So you believe the money, like when I was in the military, you would buy a product for the Humvees and they would say, yeah, you know, we pay $600 for this piece.
	We're like, dude, this piece is $40.
	Right.
	Why the hell are we paying $600 for it?
	Well, you know, the contracts, you know how they are, man.
	The government always pays a lot because they're dumb.
	They always pay more than it's usually worth.
	A $40 piece for a Hummer, they're paying $600.
	I'm like, that's an awesome business for the other guy.
	Yeah, we have horrible oversight.
	But this is the point, though.
	This is the point.
	And I want to actually sincerely get your thoughts on this, on how we address this.
	So if somebody overpays for a product, that person's either got to be fired or they're an overspender or a terrible negotiator.
	But it's one of the three, right?
	Okay.
	So you feel money going to the government, we do more good with or money staying in the free market for people to produce more value?
	Where do you feel values produce more?
	Well, I'm not, I mean, I'm not sure I fully get what you're saying, but let me put it in this way.
	It's a very simple question.
	I wanted to be clear.
	Let me make it a little bit more concrete.
	So you guys know that the biggest part of the budget, more or less, is Social Security and Medicare, right?
	And Medicaid, yes.
	And Medicaid.
	Entitlement programs.
	Yeah, I mean, yeah, you can call them entitlement programs.
	I call them social insurance programs because that's what they really are.
	That's 90% of the budget, I want to say.
	No, the military is about $850 billion.
	Social Security is like $1.7 trillion.
	I think Medicare is probably closer to $700 billion.
	And then there's other.
	Way more.
	That's a high number.
	It's a big number.
	You're right.
	It's a high number.
	You'll find that that's, I think our annual budget is somewhere around like $2.7 trillion.
	And the military is like $800 billion, $900 billion.
	You know, that you can see anyways that they show us.
	Yeah.
	But nevertheless, Social Security, Medicare, the two biggest things that the government does are wildly popular.
	Medicare, you come from the insurance business.
	You probably know this.
	To administer health insurance, there's like 13, 15% cost in the administration of that health insurance.
	For Medicare, 3%.
	Far more efficient.
	Far more efficient.
	And copays are less.
	I mean, and the whatever you want to call it, consumer satisfaction.
	I don't like to think of citizens as consumers, but the satisfaction is huge through the roof, particularly the people who use it.
	People appreciate it who don't use it.
	You know, if I got my parents and they're on Medicare, I'm pretty psyched about it because I don't have to take care of them.
	My mother's in a nursing home now.
	It's Medicaid that's doing that.
	I'm not responsible for that cost.
	Social Security, through the roof.
	In fact, I think even Republicans, I think even a majority of Republicans want to expand popular is not a way to qualify something.
	If I want to get a picture of the public.
	If I went to a high school and I said, guys, I'm giving dime bags to everybody wheat, I'd be a very popular fan of high school.
	So that is a wrong way to qualify.
	Well, you said efficiency.
	Yeah.
	Medicare, 3% administrative cost versus 15%.
	It's like the kid that's running for class president who's like, every Friday, we're throwing a pizza party.
	Well, he's going to get everybody's vote.
	But who's providing for the pizza parties?
	Well, workers.
	In fact, I would argue that we should be actually removing the cap on Social Security taxes because right now, you know, it goes only at about $160,000, right?
	There's a cap.
	Traditionally, Social Security has captured or touched 91% of the country's income.
	You follow me?
	And now it's somewhere down in like the mid-80s because of wealth inequality.
	But your argument on the flip side of it, the argument can be as well to say, well, at the beginning when they came out with Social Security, there's only a few thousand people in America that was actually using it.
	It was not meant to be for as big of a behemoth as what it is today.
	It kept two-thirds of our elderly out of poverty.
	It keeps two-thirds of our elderly out of the world.
	Nobody's arguing.
	That's not the argument, though.
	That's not the argument.
	The argument is originally when it came out, it wasn't for you.
	You had to wait.
	You had to wait until the same time.
	No, you didn't have to.
	You had to have capitalist work and over-tax them to be able to fund it.
	That's what you had to do.
	But let me go back to the question.
	I think what you are saying, just to validate your point, I think at that point, this is FDR back in the day.
	Yeah, we can pull up the data.
	I think there was 40 workers for every retiree.
	I think now it's closer to like three workers.
	Yeah, it's not sustainable.
	It's not even close.
	No, no, no.
	It is sustainable.
	You think it's sustainable?
	No, no, I don't think it's sustainable.
	I'm looking at the Social Security Trust Fund actuarial.
	With the letter, when they sent you, when they sent you in the Social Security letter, they're telling you if we go this way, this is going to go bankrupt.
	No letter.
	No, you're misreading it.
	The trust fund is going to go bankrupt.
	In 1981, Greenspan and Reagan expanded the trust fund.
	We had a surge of baby boomers.
	There is a trust fund that exists that is essentially like a rainy day fund.
	That is going to go, that is going to be insolvent around 3033.
	2033.
	2030.
	No, no, sorry.
	20 years.
	10 years.
	You are correct.
	I just had this conversation this last week.
	However, that's not a concern.
	However, that's not a concern.
	It is a concern.
	It will cause 20% in cuts to our benefits.
	But that's it, period.
	Now, the way that we can get rid of that 20% in cuts in this Social Security Trust Fund is to do what I'm suggesting.
	Remove the cap so that every dollar you make, even above $160,000 is taxed by Social Security.
	And then your kids will be long dead before that trust holds up.
	If I raise my kids right, my kids won't need to be supported by the government.
	If they don't need that social insurance, look, I mean, how can you, as an insurance guy, how can you not understand this?
	No, no, I.
	I don't sit around saying like, you know, I hope that I don't need my fire insurance.
	I hope I don't.
	If your kids don't need Social Security, old age insurance, then you know what?
	But I also tax the money back.
	I am better for society.
	I am better for society if I find ways to get people off of needing any of this stuff than to rely on it more and more and more because I'm truly hurting those who are creating commerce.
	That's why I'm hurting.
	But let me go back to the next one.
	We had an experiment with this.
	But wait a minute, let me ask you a question for you.
	Let me ask a question for you.
	You still haven't answered my question for me.
	No, no, wait.
	I'm on the 001K's private solution.
	You still haven't answered my question.
	Let me go back to the question to you.
	My question at the beginning, you have not yet answered.
	When you said, you know, I would go back to the old tax system and I would take you to the 50s and 60s where we had a 90% ta-da-da-da-da.
	And I asked you a question.
	I said, who do you think produces more value?
	I gave the example of the Humvee, the pieces in the Army, how much we were paying, $600, but the piece was only $40.
	And the government tends to overspend because they're reckless spending.
	They're not really held accountable.
	Does money going in free market create more value or money going to the government create more value for people?
	Explain to me what you mean by value.
	Okay, so value to me is, you know, if I can give money to free market and lower taxes where they can go create more jobs, more opportunities, is that better for us long term?
	Or is it better for us to raise taxes to take away incentives and give that money, tax money, goes to politicians to make decisions what to do with the money?
	Are politicians better at making decisions on what to do with our money or are we?
	I mean, I guess in a broad way, I would say if we're going to look at the biggest chunk of money in the government to make this assessment, right?
	$1.7 trillion, Social Security, and we can compare it to the one sort of like comparable thing in the private, in the private sector, and that's a 401k.
	I would have to say, I mean, just based upon the way you set up this question, that obviously the government, because Social Security has been the single most effective program that we have in this country, it has kept two-thirds of our senior citizens out of poverty as a social insurance program.
	401ks have been a disaster.
	They've been a disaster.
	Just Google right there in front of you the 401k experiment.
	People took the money out.
	I mean, and grant you, like, you know, you can make an assessment that these individuals were stupid or immoral or whatever it is.
	I'm looking at the goal of keeping senior citizens out of poverty.
	The government has been able to do that far more effectively.
	Two-thirds of our seniors are in nursing homes because the government is paying for it.
	You can look around at anything that doesn't involve a profit motive.
	Like, for instance, the post office.
	If we didn't have a government-run post office, do you think you could live in the most rural parts of the country and get postal service for 42 cents or 48 cents you can send a letter?
	No way.
	What person looking to make a profit would do that?
	In fact, I've got a great example.
	This is, you know, I was doing radio during Katrina, and there was a story that haunted me for years and years.
	Bill Clinton, I'm not a huge fan of Bill Clinton's administration, frankly, but one of the things he did do well was to build up FEMA.
	I guess having come from Arkansas, he had a pretty good sense of what was important there.
	And Bush, when he came in very early on, privatized a ton of it.
	There was a story, a very small story.
	In New Orleans, the buses that were supposed to come to New Orleans to evacuate people before Katrina hit, there was a whole ton of buses that went through three different contractors, right?
	There was like a general contractor and then a subcontractor and then a subcontractor who was going to bring the buses.
	They were from like three or four hours away.
	And maybe it was six hours.
	I can't remember the exact details.
	They were going to send the buses, but the guy whose job it was, who owns the bus company, and then the contractor above that, they waited longer because if you send the buses and they're not used, they're going to eat that cost, right?
	It's going to cut into their profits.
	They didn't send the buses.
	They didn't get there in time.
	People couldn't get evacuated.
	Would it have changed the trajectory of the thing?
	I doubt it, but it would have saved some people.
	And the point is that there are some jobs that the government does better because the value there is not measured in terms of actual sheer dollars.
	It is measured in, you know, essentially how much amiseration are you inhibiting people from suffering?
	And so I, you know, like, yes, I agree that when it comes to auditing in the military, worst, the worst government agency we have because it's very easy.
	It's very hard to sort of like scrutinize the military.
	People don't like that.
	And it's also a huge power base of a lot of money.
	They make a ton of money out of this.
	I agree with that.
	But if you look at Medicare, Social Security.
	Well, listen, the numbers don't lie.
	3% administrative costs for Medicare.
	I appreciate some of the points you're making.
	I do think that you're kind of conflating a couple different things.
	I think to Pat's question, whether the government is better at spending your money or whether the private markets and private companies are better, it's not even close.
	If private companies are spending money to buy like soda or to actually just direct it in a way that keeps less people from selling.
	Okay, we have $31 trillion in debt right now.
	I think that's evidence enough, Sam, that we're not so good at spending money here in America.
	Listen to that.
	Since politicians aren't spending money.
	It's a better ward.
	Okay, there's a difference between being frugal and being smart with your money and just being wasteful.
	The government is clearly fucking wasteful.
	Where you are correct is that most retirees and most Americans do appreciate Social Security, do appreciate the entitlement programs that come with this country, whether it's Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, no doubt.
	But that doesn't mean the government is good at spending money.
	We're seeing that Social Security is about to go bankrupt.
	No, the trust fund is going to be.
	The trust fund by 2023.
	And yes, I just had this conversation literally two days ago in D.C. where he kept using the word bankrupt, bankrupt, bankrupt.
	I said, what does that mean?
	Who kept using that word?
	This was Republican.
	He wasn't even a Republican.
	He was sort of a Social Security financial advisor expertise type of guy.
	But I said, what do you keep saying bankrupt?
	Is that meaning that retirees will not be receiving benefits?
	He goes, no, they'll probably be slashed by 25%.
	You use 20%.
	So we can cut the baby in half here.
	But how familiar are you with the three-legged stool of retirement?
	Of course, yes.
	Okay, so it used to be you had three avenues to retire.
	You had pensions, which pays, do they even exist anymore for 90% of people?
	They're more as a defined contribution than defined contributions.
	They're not very popular these days.
	I don't know how many people here have pensions.
	You have Social Security, which was never meant to be a retirement program.
	It was an insurance policy.
	If you live too long, which basically Americans are now.
	Or you have your personal savings, which is the 401k.
	We can argue the merits of 401ks and Roth IREs, what have you.
	But Social Security should not be keeping Americans afloat for 30 years of their life.
	Well, that's not the private industry, isn't it?
	Why is that a failure of the private industry?
	Well, I mean, Social Security is maintained.
	The idea that we're leaning on the government stool because the other two have failed, that's a function of the future.
	Isn't that a function of just the average person understanding how money works and saving money, investing and doing it properly versus the government or institutions?
	100% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck.
	How are they supposed to save this money?
	Well, how are they spending their money, I guess, is the biggest question.
	How many people have credit card debt?
	How many people?
	You just said when you took out a mortgage, you said, I'm an actor.
	What was the rate?
	You're like, I don't fucking even know.
	You should know.
	Well, I was making so much money that I was thinking, Sam, you should know what your mortgage rate is.
	But, you know, I mean, I didn't remember what it was in 1998, but I mean, I know what it is now.
	But I was making so much money, but I was making, I was in the top, I don't know, I don't know if I was in the top 1% at that time, but probably pretty close.
	So let me ask you a question.
	I was a single guy who had just gone from making $22,000 a year to all of a sudden making that making a week at that point.
	I mean, I was making a lot of money.
	Now, how comfortable at that point would you have been paying 90% in taxes?
	Sure.
	So you actually want to pay 90%?
	I'm 80% in taxes?
	No, no, no.
	Let's be clear.
	I think it should be 90% over every dollar you make over $3 million.
	That would not have impacted me at that time.
	But I would have been happy to pay more taxes.
	Why would anyone?
	You know why I'm laughing?
	Because it's always let's tax the people a little richer than me.
	It's always let's tax the people.
	Well, it was a lot richer.
	But I'm just going to say that.
	No, not that much.
	If you're saying 20% of the people.
	I'm just going back to the 10% of the people.
	If you were saying $22 a week, you were making a million in 98.
	That's a lot of money.
	No, Well, it wasn't 20.
	You said 22 a week.
	That's a million a year.
	No, no, no.
	That was the year before.
	I mean, but you're making money.
	Let's just.
	I was making a bunch of money.
	But I'm just going back to when we had the Great Compression, which was when we had the least wealth inequality in this country.
	The GDP was consistent with where, you know, on our trajectory, but it was spread out.
	It wasn't like this, essentially.
	It was going, it was more spread out.
	It's called the Great Compression.
	And I'm just using that figure.
	I mean, look, if it's going to be 85% over 3 million or 85% over $4 million, I'm just basing it on what was the most successful economic Europe of this country.
	Why not do 90% over $250,000?
	I mean, if the numbers bear it out, I'm agnostic as to that.
	Again, I'm just pegging it on when we had the most success in this country in terms of our economy.
	I appreciate that you're pointing out the success, but right now the top marginal rax rate federally is 37.39.
	Okay, you do realize how shocking it is to say, all right, rather than go from 37 to 39, how about 40?
	How many people?
	How about 50?
	How many people?
	Do you want to go to 90?
	How many people do you see?
	How many people do you assume would be touched by that tax, would be implicated?
	Top 1%.
	Look at this number right here.
	Share of total income taxes paid.
	Less.
	The top 1% in this country pay 42.3%.
	The bottom 50% only pay 2.3 seats.
	So 150 million people are paying nothing in taxes.
	Right.
	And you want to keep the 1% paying more and more.
	I think it's actually even less than 1%, to be honest with you.
	I think we're talking about 0.05%.
	10%.
	Let's tax them even more.
	Oh, I specifically want to make it illegal to be almost as wealthy as you.
	Not quite, but a little bit more.
	Like, I want to make it not illegal.
	You're not going to go to jail.
	So nobody can be a billionaire.
	No billionaires.
	No billions.
	No billionaires in America.
	Absolutely.
	Sam, billionaires.
	100%.
	Why?
	Don't you want America?
	To be known for greatness, for innovation, for capitalism.
	For all the investigative things that we've done in this country.
	My definition of greatness.
	You want to go to like Nordic socialism.
	My definition of greatness is different from yours.
	I'll give you an example why I think billionaires are a problem.
	This country's public school system has been hopefully not fatally derailed because of an experiment that the Gateses did.
	They sunk about $750 million, probably about a billion dollars directly, and then multiple billions other sort of like subsidiarily into an experiment in this country for education.
	It was done primarily up in the Northwest, but it changed the whole trajectory of education in this country.
	Value-added, high-stakes testing, all of this.
	They did it up in the Northwest.
	It impacted everything.
	Obama's Secretary of Education pursued this.
	In New York, we had high-stakes testing, et cetera, et cetera.
	In 2017, okay, this for two decades shoved a lot of teachers out of the industry, people who loved to teach, but then they lost like their ability to, because everything had to be taught to the test.
	And there was no sort of like real thought going into education.
	Everything was prescribed.
	2017, 2018, the Gates hired the Rand Corporation to make an assessment of their almost 20-year project, which derailed education in this country.
	And the Rand Corporation said unequivocally, big mistake.
	Should have listened to educators and big mistake.
	Don't do it anymore.
	And basically, the problem with billionaires, in my estimation, is that on a whim, whether his intentions are good or bad or whatever, it doesn't matter.
	No one should have the ability to impact society in that way unilaterally.
	Neither should.
	We don't have kings.
	But neither.
	We don't have kings.
	We live in the best system that we possibly can have, which is, at this point, which is like as much democracy and we could have a little bit more, right?
	There's still some minoritarian aspects of what we're going through.
	But democracy is better.
	It involves more stakeholders in it.
	It brings more people in who have investments in this.
	You cannot have one person decide on a whim, I'm going to derail public education in this country for decades.
	You just can't have that.
	We got rid of oligarchs when we got rid of kings.
	And Sam, when you said it, and not to cut you off, Adam, because while you were saying that, Sam, I was looking at the chart for the spending.
	When you're talking about education, look how small that little chunk of education is because they love to keep us stupid.
	But look at our defense.
	And I go, when we're in debt and we say that, thank God we're spending that much money.
	And you know why all the money that we, who do we owe the most money to?
	China, you would say?
	No.
	China and Japan.
	No, China and Japan?
	No, no.
	We owe the most amount of money of our federal debt.
	Over 60% of it is to the U.S. government.
	So we owe ourselves.
	Yes.
	That's correct.
	We owe Social Security.
	We bought it.
	Vinny, what point were you making?
	My point was making, like, thank God we're spending that much money because whoever we do all this money to can't come and get it.
	You don't see nobody coming.
	Oh, you're talking about military defense.
	Military defense, right?
	So your argument is that.
	That's so much money.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Let me get back to how a billionaires or even multi-multi-millionaires should be abolished or illegal, as you said.
	I think you said that sort of tongue.
	Illegal in tongue and chip.
	But I do think that we should have a structure that you can't amass that kind of wealth.
	Let me ask you this.
	With all due respect.
	Can we get the authorities here to take us away?
	I have my own opinions, but I'm listening.
	Not the person.
	Sam, how long have you been doing your show, the majority report?
	I've been doing talk radio for 18 years.
	Majority report, though.
	Well, it was the majority report on radio, but as a podcast, it'll be 12, 13 years.
	Okay.
	And you have how many subscribers on YouTube?
	A million subscribers.
	A million.
	No, he's bigger than a million.
	No, you're 1.5.
	Are you not like a closer to him?
	Why do I think you're at the bottom?
	Why are you trying to tax him more, Pat?
	No, no, I think he's over a million.
	I'd say 1.3, 1.3 probably.
	Let me pull it up.
	If you can pull it up to 1.3 million subs.
	Yeah.
	How big do you want to get that?
	How big do I want to get it?
	Ideally.
	What's your target goal in the next 10 years?
	What would you love to get to?
	Retirement.
	How many subscribers would you say?
	Honestly.
	5 million?
	The only difference that makes to me is that my kid is excited.
	Cool.
	And are you comfortable sharing how much revenue a million subscribers makes?
	How much we get in terms of advertising?
	Just in general, what's your top line revenue for a big channel like this?
	It's in the hundreds of thousands.
	Okay.
	Now, let's say you got it up to $5 million.
	Let's just say you want to get retired.
	You want your kid to be proud of you.
	And here comes Spotify or here comes Rumble.
	You probably wouldn't be comfortable with Rumble, but here comes some big media outlet that says, Sam, you're killing it, dude.
	You are killing it.
	We want to give you a $250 million deal to take you.
	You, Sam Cedar, will get a $250 million deal.
	Congratulations.
	You got to take all your stuff off YouTube.
	We're going to put you over onto Spotify.
	Sort of reminiscent of a Joe Rogan type deal.
	You're a few years away.
	You're not there yet, but you'll get there.
	What would you say if they said we want to give you $250 million?
	How would you feel comfortable accepting that kind of money?
	Sure.
	I mean, I don't know if I would.
	You would take it?
	I mean, I don't know if I would want to actually go onto Spotify to get behind a paywall.
	Let's say YouTube wanted to give you $250 million.
	If somebody came up to me and gave me $250 million, sure.
	You would take it.
	Well, yeah, of course.
	So by your own logic, should you now go to jail?
	What?
	If you made $250 million by yourself.
	I'm not suggesting that Patrick should go to jail.
	I'm talking about you saying that.
	No, I'm not talking about hypotheticals.
	I am saying that I believe the tax rate should be the top marginal tax rate should be over about $3 million, about 90%.
	So if they give you a four-year deal, if the taxes are that.
	$75 million a year less.
	Yes, I should go to jail.
	Okay, that's fine.
	If the taxes are at that level and I don't pay the taxes.
	Now you're talking about tax evasion.
	But I'm not saying that people should go to jail because they make a lot of money.
	I'm saying as a suggestion.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to say that.
	You were sort of joking.
	No, I was joking.
	I'm appreciating the joke, but what I'm asking you is I cannot appreciate that.
	Totally appreciate it.
	Totally opposite.
	I'm appreciating it.
	I just don't want my guy going to jail or whatever.
	I've never seen it.
	If you made $250 million should be structured in such a way that people cannot have a billion dollars or that they cannot amass enough money where they would have that type of political power associated with it.
	So you're more concerned about power.
	If I could say this, like, you know, if you think about what is the greatest case study in the world ever, right?
	And we ranked the top 10 greatest case studies.
	There's a lot of them, right?
	What the case studies could be.
	But one of the greatest case studies in the world is how this, you know, a group of 50-something men came together who were not happy about what was going on in Britain.
	And they started this idea in 1776.
	And they wrote out the Federalist Paper, the Constitution, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
	And then that went and turned into this behemoth of a country that positively impacted the world, technology that's being used around the world.
	And it validated that the best economical system in the world is capitalism.
	If it allowed people to go out there and are willing to work and how big of a dream they wanted to build and how big of a life they wanted to build, you kind of leave them alone.
	You know, if they put a limit on how big of a YouTube channel you could make, you can't have a YouTube channel over 10 million.
	I mean, you know, you wouldn't have PewDiePie.
	You wouldn't have Mr. Beast.
	Maybe you'd be happy if you didn't have these guys.
	I'm not too familiar with those guys.
	But let me just say this, though.
	But if what you were saying was true, right?
	I mean, if we were really just going to basically, well, I mean, this is the greatest case study ever.
	Well, but if you really want to look into actual, I mean, if you're really looking at that case study, right?
	You got to say this country, and, you know, it is what it is.
	But the idea that this country was just simply capitalism, it was also, there was a tremendous amount of free labor that was used to harvest a crop that made northerners wealthy, northern financiers wealthy, shipping magnates wealthy, and it made obviously the plantation owners wealthy.
	Now, we would never advocate that you should have slavery today.
	course we would but but but so to go back but wait a minute Wait a minute.
	You can't say something like that and give the black guy to the country because that was done in practically every country in the world.
	So it was a very important thing.
	I don't want to debate the slavery uniquely bad here versus anything.
	No, the point I'm trying to make to you is if that was accessible everywhere.
	Well, no, it wasn't.
	In most countries, they had a form of slavery at one point or so didn't have the confluation between slavery, cheap labor, and the fertile ground to grow cotton.
	For instance, for instance, let me just give you another example of this, because you really, if you're going to talk about American history, and this is not about America is particularly uniquely evil because their slavery was uniquely worse than someone else.
	Granted, we had chattel slavery, which was not as necessarily popular other places, but that doesn't matter.
	The bottom line is if you're going to make an assessment on how this country grew, put aside like the feelings of ego or hurt feelings that it makes me feel bad as an American, whatnot.
	If you want to just look at it coldly, you look at something like the Trail of Tears.
	The reason why we had the Trail of Tears and killed all of those Native American people is because plantation owners in Georgia and Alabama wanted the fertile ground that had been given to those Native tribes because it was fertile ground.
	They could grow more cotton there.
	When we basically eliminated those Native Americans, sent them on the trail of tears, the number of slaves grew exponentially because these plantation owners got this raw material, which was the fertile ground.
	They brought in free labor to harvest it.
	The hardest part of cotton, of dealing with cotton, is the harvesting of it.
	I mean, this is part of the system.
	And, you know, I'm not saying that America is uniquely evil because of it or uniquely clear about it.
	You are saying that.
	No, I'm not.
	You're saying that.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm just looking at the cost.
	I'm saying the greatest case study.
	Patrick, I'm just looking at the cold, hard facts.
	And if you're going to look at it as a case study, you have to make that assessment.
	How do you judge?
	That is part of it.
	How do you judge?
	Free labor.
	How do you judge your business?
	How do you judge a great idea succeeding?
	How do you judge a great idea succeeding?
	What's your way of judging a great idea?
	What's my way of...
	How do you, like, let's just say we come up with an idea, okay?
	And by the way, the idea could be as small as, hey, moving forward, Sam, I think what we need to do with your YouTube channel.
	What's the goal?
	What do you mean what's the goal?
	Well, if I'm going to measure a great idea, I want to know what the goal is.
	Because I feel like, here's the thing, Patrick.
	No, no, no.
	And I don't mean this.
	I mean this with all due respect.
	But I feel like your assessment of a great idea or of a great thing in this is measured in how many dollars it is.
	No, I never said that.
	I never said that.
	All of your examples.
	But can you play long instead of assuming?
	Just play long instead of assuming and jump at a conclusion.
	I'm going to give you the respect.
	Give me the respect as well.
	How do we judge a great, how do you judge a great father?
	How do I judge a great father?
	Yeah.
	How do you say he's a good father?
	Are you a good father?
	I try to be.
	Okay, I try to be.
	So I don't know if I am.
	I don't know if I am.
	Quite frankly, you and I are not going to know if we're good fathers, I think, for another 30 years.
	You know, we'll find out if we're a good father.
	Well, what would be the measure?
	Like, if you want it, like, like, what is the metrics in which you measure?
	No problem.
	So let me ask you this way.
	Okay.
	To me, how do we judge a great show on YouTube?
	How do we judge a great restaurant?
	How do you judge a great, I don't know, a great movie?
	How do we judge a great party?
	How do we judge a great nightclub?
	How do we judge any of those things?
	I would love to do this.
	You write down how you judge a great show on YouTube, and I write down how I judge a great show on YouTube and, you know, restaurant, movie, and I guarantee it's going to be different.
	Oh, okay.
	So how do you judge a great restaurant?
	I mean, a great restaurant, I'm not so great when it comes to food, but I would say like a great movie for me is a function of like maybe how much emotion I feel or how many insights I get from it.
	And are they doing something that impacts the cultural language of film?
	I mean, that's the way I would judge it.
	So I would say one of the best ways to judge what country has done it the best around the world is how many people can't wait to go there.
	And if you judge it based on that, America is kicking everybody's tail.
	I'm an Iranian guy.
	I'm from Iran.
	You look at the amount of immigrants.
	I went through a refugee camp to come here, dude.
	My parents got a divorce.
	My mom's in town last night.
	Her and I were having a conversation until late at night.
	We sacrificed a lot.
	They sacrificed their marriage, language, barrier, all just to come to America, okay?
	My mom and dad never said.
	What was the situation in Iran?
	It's a pretty shitty situation in Iran.
	But also, why did, well, we had a lot of other options.
	I'm in Honduras.
	We had 100.
	But we had 195 other options.
	Why did we come here?
	Why didn't we go to Russia?
	Why don't we go to China?
	Why don't we go to Venezuela?
	Why don't we go to Cuba?
	Why don't we go to Germany?
	Why do we come to America?
	Why is America leading 4X number two?
	40 plus million people that want to come here.
	So you could say, well, you know, it's because that's not really a right way to measure it because if you think about this, this, that, why do so many people want to come to America?
	I think there, I mean, I think because there is, A, a promise.
	I don't know if it's kept.
	Many instances it's not, but there's a promise of more economic opportunity.
	Certainly, depending on where you come from, it's pretty clear.
	Like, I mean, if you're coming from Honduras, there's more economic opportunity.
	It's also theoretically safer, right, than Honduras is.
	Many of those people also have relatives that come here.
	I mean, there's a whole host of reasons.
	You've got also a tremendous mix of people here.
	So there's a community.
	There's an Iranian community.
	Why, though?
	Why are they coming here, though?
	Well, why did they come here?
	Because it's a lot easier to drive to Russia than it is to drive to the U.S.
	I can't even drive to you.
	It's a longer flight.
	Well, I think our democracy, too.
	Got it.
	So because of what the founders created, a system where I could come here as an atheist, when I came here, I was an atheist.
	I didn't believe in a God.
	I didn't think God exists.
	If a God really exists, why would we have all these wars in Iran?
	That makes no sense to me.
	Good for you, weak people, that you think you need to go to.
	I don't need it.
	And then later on in life, at 25 years old, I made a different decision.
	But nobody judged me if I was an atheist when I was in the army.
	Nobody said anything to me.
	Yeah, I was Iranian.
	I wanted the army.
	Yeah, we had some jokes.
	We made fun of each other.
	Truly, like people made fun of each other, but we got along.
	I feel like you misinterpreted why I was explaining how the economic power was built in this country.
	I'm not saying that America is bad.
	That's not my point.
	Are you saying this is the greatest case study of a country in the world ever?
	The greatest case study?
	Meaning that when it comes down to showing opportunity, no other country has done it better than America has based on what it was founded on.
	I mean, you could argue that like, you know, our mobility numbers, certainly at times, at times it's met that promise.
	I mean, that's why I want to go back to that tax rate because the time where we had the most mobility in our society.
	Now, granted, we still, you know, in the 50s and 60s, if you were black, you didn't have the same civil rights, obviously.
	I mean, you know, you couldn't engage in commerce in the same way.
	You couldn't, you know, country's always going to make progress.
	We keep getting better.
	It sounds like you want to make America great again, but just tax purposes.
	No, no, no.
	I just want to go.
	When I think about the greatest expansion of the economy for the most amount of people, it was during that era.
	So let's go.
	This was a great shot.
	So we'll say this.
	Here we go.
	I do appreciate Donald Trump defending Social Security and Medicare.
	I don't believe necessarily that he would do that if he got into office, but I certainly appreciate him doing it for social security.
	Side note, for selfish reasons.
	Did you watch the movie The Whale?
	I did.
	Did you like it?
	Yeah, I had mixed feelings about it.
	I actually used to be friends with the director, and so I can sometimes sort of see, it's hard for me to sort of separate what I'm watching, but I thought it was interesting.
	I thought it was a terrible example for parents to watch and kids to watch.
	Dad gave up on the kid.
	It was a very difficult movie to watch.
	I thought Brandon crushed it.
	I am so happy to see that guy do what he did.
	What an incredible performance to do with I thought that was a 10 of a performance.
	Redemption is a great story to see.
	But anyways, the movie.
	Did they win the movie that won was the other title?
	Yeah.
	I thought performance-wise, he crushes.
	Okay, let's go on to Trump.
	Let's talk about some Trump topics here, and let's transition into that because we got 35 more minutes.
	I'd like to hit a couple other topics here.
	Oh, shit, my page is missing pages.
	Let me see if I can find it.
	I would like to go to, yeah, this is better.
	I would like to go to the story about what's going on with him.
	And you know how he said Tuesday, I'm going to get arrested, all this stuff.
	Let me read that story.
	Where's the story on that?
	But first of all, I'll just ask you the question.
	So, what are your thoughts about what's going on right now with him?
	You know, the New York getting him to get arrested and all these deep fakes have come out.
	If you can show some of the pictures, Rob, on the deep fakes that they're showing, you know, I mean, you got to give them credit for what they're doing.
	Go to the next one.
	You know, you got more here, and then keep going.
	This is fake.
	He would never run like that, by the way.
	No chance he's running.
	That's not happening.
	Look how young.
	You look younger.
	Keep going.
	Yeah.
	I mean, but mind you, but mind you, Pat, this is right now.
	And my cousin Ryan was just at one of these conventions where all these AI producers.
	Trump is a cop, by the way.
	No, Milani is really pissed off.
	Yes, it is Trump.
	I didn't even know that.
	I can't go here.
	Palladium.
	You're under arrest.
	But my cousin just went to a convention where he's with all these AI programmers and stuff.
	And they're like, yeah, we're having problems just, you know, with the fingers and stuff.
	But can you imagine this is just random.
	In five years, the propaganda machine just like Sam, I have a video of you, and it's proof, prove to me that you weren't here stabbing or robbing or running.
	It's going to be a disaster.
	I agree totally.
	Oh my God, Sam.
	And just trying to prove yourself like you weren't, your innocence is going to be insane.
	And I'm like, it's going to be really nuts.
	Oh, God.
	I think it's going to be bad both ways, by the way.
	100%.
	You know what I mean, both ways?
	What do you mean?
	I mean, the other side, guys are going to be like, nah, that's not me.
	That's a deep fake.
	Yeah, I want to.
	I think it's going to be both used against you in and out where the lawyer's going to come in and they're going to say, yeah, that's not really him.
	That's a deep fake.
	That's what is known as the shaggy approach.
	It wasn't me.
	It wasn't me.
	There you go.
	I like it.
	So, so, okay, so this whole thing, are they, you know, the conversation from the left or the right or people in the middle who really are like, I don't know what's going on.
	The right, they're targeting him because they want to eliminate a competition and they've been trying to do it so many different times.
	The left, no, this guy did break the law and let's go get him arrested because he is this, he is that.
	Where are you at with this scenario?
	I, you know, I uh I've always sort of like looked at criminal cases, you know, even from like even before I got into this and sort of felt like I let juries decide.
	I mean, it's not unprecedented that somebody would like John Edwards went through something very similar to this in his race.
	He, I think, was ultimately acquitted, but I don't know how the details are different.
	But I mean, look, this one, you know, as far as like, am I offended that he paid hush money to, you know, someone he was having an affair with or something like that?
	I mean, you shouldn't, you shouldn't lie on your business forms, right?
	I mean, you know that.
	I mean, it's illegal if you do that.
	If they're prosecuting him, they're prosecuting.
	If a grand jury indicts him, the grand jury indicts him.
	I don't think that he should get off because he's a former president.
	I think the one in Georgia is probably a lot more serious in terms of an offense towards our democracy.
	And we'll see what happens with that.
	I mean, so does it help him?
	Does it hurt him?
	You know, some people say Elon Musk is like, he's going to be there.
	This is pretty much going to guarantee him winning the election.
	Where are you at with that, with what's going to happen?
	I think it probably helps him in the Republican primary.
	Got it.
	I think he was going to win the problem.
	I think he's going to win the Republican primary.
	I think in the general election, it remains to be seen.
	There's so many factors.
	I had predicted very early on that he would probably win the Republican primary in 2016.
	I was not, I did not predict correctly in the general election.
	I can tell you that.
	But yeah, I mean, look, he has a very solid base of support.
	And I think my experience of the conservative movement and the conservative mind is that aggrievement is a big motivating factor.
	There is always like some argument of, you know, I have to use other pronouns.
	It's an imposition on me or the whatever it is.
	The gay marriage is an imposition on me or Muslims are an imposition on me or whatever it is is an imposition on me.
	That aggrievement drives it.
	And this is why I think he knows there is some value to get out of it.
	At least he's using it for fundraising.
	I don't think he wants to be indicted.
	I don't think that's a pleasant thing.
	You got to expend money on lawyers and stuff like that.
	But my guess is it would probably help him.
	I mean, DeSantis in this morning console poll I saw, I guess, yesterday, maybe the day before, he's at his lowest ebb.
	He went up and then he went back down.
	I think the more he goes around, people don't like him that much.
	And I think I'm not terribly surprised by that.
	I feel like you could see that with like Giuliani and Scott Walker.
	These were people who were very popular in their own area, or at least there was a perception they were very popular.
	And then nationally, they just fizzled out.
	I mean, I don't think DeSantis is, I don't think there's really a lot of evidence that DeSantis is as popular as, you know, coming out of Florida.
	You'd probably know better being here.
	But, you know, I look at his vote tallies in the last election.
	He was running against a horrible candidate who has lost in every single party that exists.
	Charlie Chris.
	Yeah, Charlie Chris is one of the worst candidates in the world.
	I don't know why they bring this guy out.
	And DeSantis, you know, basically performed in the same way that Marco Rubio did.
	Way better than Marco Rubio.
	No.
	No, Rubio won by like 1.3 million votes, 1.4 million.
	I think DeSantis won by 1.5, 1.6.
	I mean, Charlie Chris is a horrible candidate.
	I mean, just horrible.
	And the Democratic Party in Florida is really, really weak.
	I mean, it's not doing a very good job as an institution.
	And so, I don't know.
	I think that there's, you know, but we'll see.
	I mean, I think it'll, it may help him, may hurt him.
	I mean, it's going to hurt him if he's in jail.
	You think it'll get there?
	You think it'll get there?
	It's hard for me to imagine.
	But, you know, I don't know what, like, you know, people are saying like Biden should step in.
	The same people who complain that Biden's some type of dictator want him to step in and tell a district attorney in Manhattan, don't prosper.
	Who's saying that?
	Who's saying that?
	Who's saying for him to step in?
	Oh, God.
	I mean, you see it all over the place.
	I saw Tucker Carlson at the very least.
	I know, you know, was articulating it two nights ago.
	Biden should step in.
	And what?
	Pardon him?
	I don't know.
	What is the president supposed to do about a charge in New York?
	Yeah, there it is.
	Yeah, begs Biden to stop indictment for the sake of the kind of, how does he do that?
	Yeah.
	Sneak into the grand jury.
	I don't know if that's in a big way.
	I think it's more, you know, what is happening is it's the same thing with Tate, right?
	A guy, I had Andrew Tate's lawyer on.
	I don't know if you follow his story.
	I had his lawyer on, right?
	So anyways, but I said, with a guy like this, you know, every month, he gets an additional 30 days for six months.
	So he's going to be 180 days of keeping him in the Romanian jail.
	They could have done it in April of last year, but they delayed it until October or whatever month it was when they did it, November when they arrested him.
	And it's allegedly, allegedly, allegedly.
	I said, if they don't get this guy this time and he comes out, he's going to blow up and even more because it's going to be every time you try to get me to blame you for something and it's not coming true, you got to stop.
	And his image gets bigger and bigger.
	Whether it was Russia, whether it was whatever, they've tried so many different ways to get this guy, Trump.
	And his audience then says, Well, I told you they're just targeting this guy.
	They're just targeting this guy.
	They're just targeting this guy.
	And the MAGA group, not all the other Republicans, Rhinos, but the MAGA group is like, dude, these guys are targeting him.
	So the support form is going to get bigger and bigger each time they do this.
	My question for you would be: I don't think that should be a concern of prosecutors.
	I don't think that you should, I don't think you should.
	I don't think so.
	No, if you got a case score for it, I'm not telling you to do or not.
	If you got a case, but by the way, if you got a case, you got to also go after Hunter Biden.
	If you got a case, you also got to go after Honor.
	Who is the charges?
	Well, I mean, they're investigating it.
	Yeah, if I do it.
	If you do find something, you should go for it.
	If you got the laptop, don't say we don't have the laptop and not look through it.
	There's a part of that that becomes favoritism.
	Question for you would be the following: Do you think which is more likely to happen?
	Okay.
	And DeSantis, let's just say, wins, not the general, but he wins a primary.
	Okay.
	Let's just say he does.
	Okay.
	The chances are slim.
	You know, CPAC was 20%, Trump 60%.
	I'm just saying, let's just say that happens.
	Okay.
	What's more likely to happen for DeSantis' camp to support Trump if Trump wins the primary or Trump's camp to support DeSantis?
	We all know how to see that.
	Are you kidding?
	Are you kidding?
	No, Trump's not going to support DeSantis.
	I mean, I think not in a million years.
	No, here's my question, though.
	Do you think that there's a, is there a percent, like a possibility that DeSantis realizes, okay, this cat, Trump is going to win, and then doesn't even announce that he's going to win.
	No, that was my thinking up until like a month ago.
	That's a very good question.
	This guy, I mean, I mean, if I was DeSantis, I would say, I'm going to wait.
	Yeah, and maybe be the vice president.
	Well, because I don't think he'll be VP, though.
	If he becomes VP, he won't become VP.
	Christine Noam, it's going to be somebody like I don't think it's going to be.
	DeSantis is young.
	He could wait four years.
	Trump is out of the picture.
	There's no incumbency in the president.
	Incumbency is very helpful, regardless of who the president is, more often than not.
	I think he's got a much better shot.
	I mean, he's going to go up against Trump.
	And this Republican Party, I mean, I think once Trump is gone, like literally gone, like departed the planet, then I think there's going to be an opportunity for other people in the Republican Party.
	But he has a hold.
	He'll still be tweeting.
	On Thursday.
	It's like Blockbuster.
	You're not Blockbuster retweeted.
	He'll still tweet.
	He'll still tweet.
	I mean, he has a big hold on the party because in many respects, the party was really training itself to embrace a guy like Trump for years and years.
	Okay.
	So did you see DeSantis on Pierce Morgan?
	Have you seen the interview yet?
	No, I haven't.
	Okay.
	So I think this is like the first time where he went at it a little bit.
	I don't know if you saw any of that.
	So I'll go to this article.
	It's an incident.
	You got Trump's note, Truth Social, what he wrote.
	That was fantastic.
	It was hilarious.
	It was fantastic.
	Which one are you talking about?
	The gay, the men and women thing, or which one are you talking about?
	No, he wrote.
	Here, you find it.
	I'm going to read the story.
	DeSantis breaks a silence on manufacturer circus around expected Trump indictment.
	I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star.
	Again, Republican government DeSantis criticized the Manhattan jury investigation into President Trump's expected.
	I don't know what goes into paying hush money for a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.
	I just can't speak to that.
	And then he follows up and he talks about how it's not fair what they're doing and it's a circus and all this other stuff.
	But that is a shot that he took at him.
	And then, boom, here's Donald Trump run this segment that's sanctimonious.
	We'll probably find out about false accusations and fake stories sometimes in the future as he gets older, wiser, and better known.
	When he's unfairly and illegally attacked by women, even classmates that are underage or possibly a man, I'm sure he will want to fight them, these misfits.
	That is hilarious.
	He went even harder on DeSantis last night and basically just did all the oppa research you need.
	I mean, it's a long thing, but he goes like, you know.
	Read the whole thing.
	Now that Ron DeSanctimonius is finally admitting he's in the race by beginning to fight back.
	For some reason, he capitalizes race.
	I don't know why he does that.
	And now that his polls also capitalizes P, but I won't stop every time he does weird capitalization, has crashed.
	He has no other choice because his polls did crash.
	Let me explain the facts.
	He is for a Republican an average governor.
	He got 1.2 million less votes in Florida than me.
	He fought massive cuts in Social Security and Medicare and wanted Social Security minimum age to be raised to 70 years old or more.
	I can't tell you how excited I am that Donald Trump is like splitting the Republican Party in half over the Social Security and Medicare.
	I really can't.
	I mean, I don't trust that he would maintain its integrity if he got into office, right?
	I mean, still waiting for his new health care plan that was like only six weeks away from being revealed eight years ago, but I'm really happy about this.
	He is a disciple of Paul Ryan and did whatever Ryan told him to do.
	I was also not a fan of Paul Ryan.
	Florida has been successful for many years, long before I put Ron there.
	And it's amazing what Ocean and Sunshine will do.
	Surprise.
	Ron has a big lockdown governor.
	I mean, he goes on and on.
	I mean, he just basically says like all the problems with Florida.
	In education, Florida ranks worst amongst the country in crime statistics.
	Florida ranked third worst in murder, third worst in rape, third worst in aggravated assault.
	For 2022, Jacksonville was ranked as one of the top 25 major crime cities in the country, with Tampa and Orlando not doing much better.
	On education, Florida ranks 39 in health and safety in the country, 50 in affordability, 30 in education.
	Hardly greatness there.
	This is his tweet.
	That was a truth.
	This was on true social.
	What is that called?
	Truth bomb.
	Truth bomb.
	Yeah, then it sounds like they need some limits.
	You have to understand from my perspective, right?
	Like, I think that Donald Trump is a danger.
	I happen to think that George W. Bush arguably did a lot worse.
	I mean, he killed hundreds of thousands of people on a lie.
	But, you know, Donald Trump really destroyed parts of the administrative state that I think are problematic.
	Rolled back this banking thing that we started with.
	I'm sorry, rolled back the banking provision that is causing all this problem right now.
	But I have to say, I like a guy who's out there saying don't touch Social Security and Medicare.
	And I like a guy out there who is like cutting against the whole myth that New York City is particularly violent.
	Our crime statistics are down like 69% from the 80s, from 1980.
	So like 70% of the time.
	That's our friend Rudy Julius.
	Giuliani cleaning up this trade.
	I have an alternate theory because if you want to look at crime nationally and internationally, when 20 years after they got rid of leaded gasoline, we know lead is a neurotoxin, right?
	20 years after, both nationally and internationally, if you look in cities, crime dropped precipitously.
	So it was the gasoline's fault.
	It was lead, which is a known poison, neurological poison.
	The story of lead just in gas is also just a horrible story of corporate malfeasance.
	I don't know if you've ever heard this, but they knew from the beginning that that lead additive was, yeah.
	Well, there's the you can address it.
	Sam, back to your initial point.
	This was an endorsement for Trump, right?
	I love this.
	I just want you to know it says, Sam just in the green room.
	Does Trump have your vote or no?
	Oh, no.
	No, he doesn't have my vote.
	He certainly has my wild wishes from the grave.
	So, Pal, before we came in, I was talking to Mike, who's back in the booth.
	Like, my thing with all the investigations from Russia, it's all that DNC with Hillary.
	And when are the Democrats going to realize two things?
	Number one, if you leave this guy alone like DeSantis has been, just don't even give him all these, all these DAs and everybody's trying to corrupt.
	Why doesn't the Democratic Party, instead of trying to just go after Trump with all this false bullshit that is making his base riled up, find a candidate, a viable, likable candidate to go against this guy so they don't have to do all this FBI bullshit, you know, trying to get the guy?
	Like, why not have a good person to go against him?
	That's what I'm asking.
	I don't understand when people characterize it as the Democrats doing this.
	Like, Alan Bragg is a Democrat, but what is the DNC or Joe Biden supposed to do about a Manhattan DA?
	What is he supposed to do about all the prosecutors in Georgia who are Republicans?
	I mean, that's the real case.
	That's the real dangerous thing.
	I fully agree with the Georgia case.
	Yeah, Georgia is a whole different situation.
	And listen, if Trump had just returned the freaking documents when he found them and when he was asked, I mean, they were asking him for months and months and months.
	Just give us the documents back.
	He wouldn't do it.
	And the guy wouldn't do it.
	He lied to his own attorneys about having them.
	He'd be fine.
	Nobody cared about that.
	The whole thing was the cover-up, essentially, in that case.
	I mean, I don't think Democrats want to focus on Donald Trump.
	I mean, frankly, you know, for me, as you know, I'm a registered Democrat, but it's more or less so that I can vote in the primaries.
	I more or less vote against Republicans, is what I do.
	Have you ever voted for a Republican?
	I probably have on like a very local level, you know, when I was living upstate.
	You probably haven't if you don't remember.
	Well, I mean, there's nothing wrong with it.
	Sometimes there's only one person running.
	And if there's only one person running for like, you know, county supervisor, but you were.
	But on a local level, local level, I mean, I can't name every Democrat I voted on a local level.
	On a local level, things have gotten much more nationalized with politics, even on a local level.
	Let's go to the next story.
	Pull up the clip of G and Putin talking to each other.
	I'm curious to get his feedback here.
	If you have the video clip, it's on Twitter.
	You can find it.
	It's all over the place when they're talking.
	But if you want to finish your thought, you can finish your thought while he's finding this video.
	Let me talk about Zed.
	Yeah, Sam.
	Just really found it.
	Oh, there you go.
	You found it?
	Okay, good.
	Make that bigger.
	So this is G and Putin talking.
	If you can go back so you can read what they're saying.
	Okay, there you go.
	Check the audio to see if we have the audio.
	Change is coming that hasn't happened in 100 years.
	Can you hear it?
	Change is coming that hasn't happened in 20 years.
	And we are driving that change together.
	Asian guy speaking Russian.
	That's crazy.
	Who is saying that?
	That's a translator.
	She's telling Putin this.
	Well, his translator is.
	She's telling Putin.
	Yeah.
	Change is coming.
	He said that.
	Is it Putin who said it or is it the Russian, the Asian guy is Xi's translator?
	He's translating in Russian.
	Make sure to tweet smaller to find out who's saying this at this point.
	Yeah, it sort of is important to know.
	Very important.
	She says it's a very important thing.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's she's a translator, which threw me off because I'm like, yo, that guy's.
	I mean, look, can we watch Putin wave goodbye like a 16-year-old girlfriend?
	Please watch this.
	Hold on.
	Let me see.
	Bye.
	He does it four more times.
	Bye.
	I love you.
	Watch this.
	Bye.
	And even as he drove off, jogged down the street.
	It very clearly shows who's the boss on that.
	But that's pretty scary, though, saying, to see these two guys, two of our biggest adversaries, coming together and doing like a, hey, like, it's going to be a good phenomenon.
	It's kind of a scary.
	That's a scary ass moment, if you ask me.
	I mean, I am really, I am really reluctant to get too engaged in wanting to have a conflict with China.
	I mean, this has been coming for a couple of decades.
	Back when I was doing radio, I interviewed Gary Hart, who sat on a commission right before 9-11 on the greatest threats to the United States in the 21st century.
	And they had a commission of about, I don't know, like 30, 40 people, had them lined up.
	What do you think is the number one threat to the United States?
	Most of the people said non-state actor terrorists.
	That was pretty prescient.
	Some said state-supported terrorists.
	One person said China.
	This is in 1999 or 2000.
	And three months later, they meet again.
	Same thing happens.
	Everybody laughs at the person in China.
	That person never came back onto the commission.
	It was Dick Cheney's wife.
	And I'm quite convinced that for a long time, the neoconservatives, primarily in the Republican Party, but some, I think, in the Democratic Party, but primarily in the Republican Party, have been worried about China.
	And it's all about economic dominance.
	And I think that we had the Asian pivot.
	If you remember back in 2020, you probably were aware of this in the aughts, where our fleet was moved to the Pacific from the Atlantic.
	And we've been gearing up for this conflict with China, basically to protect the interests of multinational corporations, particularly American corporations.
	And that's what the TPP was all about.
	And I'm in favor of making sure that we have supply lines and logistics moving and having production on shore.
	But I also think that we should not be getting into a war to protect the interests of some corporation who's not necessarily providing benefit to the United States per se.
	How do you see this in regards to Ukraine and how this affects Ukraine?
	Does this show, you know, hey, Ukraine, U.S., all the proxy wars that you're causing, look who's teaming up with me now, G. Is this going to change the strategy of U.S. and NATO towards Ukraine or this doesn't do anything there?
	I don't know how it could change anything in the context of Ukraine.
	I mean, I understand why we probably wouldn't hear of what the exit strategy is, but I think that we should have some type of exit strategy in terms of support for Ukraine.
	I agree.
	At the same time, this is not a fight that the United States picked.
	I am someone who felt like we shouldn't expand NATO.
	In fact, I think I was somebody who was feeling like we can start to sort of maybe disengage on some level of NATO.
	That is now obviously off the table because, you know, Putin, if he was worried about NATO, this was the worst thing he could have possibly done, it seems to me, was to give everybody in Europe a reason to be supportive of NATO.
	But look, we made a deal with Ukraine in 93.
	give up your nukes and we will protect you.
	And as long as we don't have regime change and as long as there's some like sort of clear-eyed notion of like how much territory Ukraine can get back, I don't know that we're going to go to pre 2014 borders, but at the same time, also, you can't, you know, I wouldn't want the I was against the Iraq war.
	I'm against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
	Same arguments.
	Like, I'm not convinced that there was a imminent threat to Russia from Ukraine that brought about their attacks on.
	Are you in favor of the amount of support we're giving Ukraine right now?
	You know, I'm of two minds of it.
	I mean, you know, I think like, obviously, we need to provide them some support, but I do worry about how deep our engagement gets.
	I think that like if you're Putin, you're waiting to see if Donald Trump becomes president.
	Because if Donald Trump becomes president, then you're quite confident that all the funding is going to dry up and you stay into that war.
	The dilemma that the Biden administration has is they have to show like overwhelming commitment that would like surpass, that would go beyond even if Donald Trump becomes president.
	And so sometimes some may say if Putin is waiting for Trump to become president because the funding would dry up for Ukraine and get weaker, why didn't he attack Ukraine under Trump?
	Because he would have never supported Ukraine.
	He thought that he could get Ukraine without having to be military, go in militarily.
	Do you think I think he thought that Trump was going to deliver him Ukraine?
	I'm not convinced that, I mean, you had Manafort on, didn't you, or something like that?
	Yeah, we did.
	Yeah, yeah, we did have him.
	He would have been a good guy to ask why Putin thought that.
	Maybe a very interesting guy to have on.
	I would imagine.
	He's very smart.
	But, Pat, but from all that that's going on, from all that hooking up with, you know, she and Putin just, was it yesterday, right after this meeting, or was it before was threatening?
	He's like, if the West sends tanks or any depleted uranium or anything to help Ukraine fight that war, he's like, nuclear components and attack.
	Well, like, now this guy's threatening like nuclear data.
	Well, he threatened that, you know, early on, too.
	I mean, the problem with backing down from a nuclear threat is that it becomes all of a sudden like licensed to do whatever you want if you have nukes.
	I mean, it's a dilemma.
	I don't think the Biden administration wanted this by any stretch of the imagination.
	In fact, the reporting.
	No, it did not.
	I think the reporting actually was that the Biden administration was convinced that Putin would take over Ukraine within a matter of days and with a week.
	And then the problem or the dilemma they had, or for many in the national security state, I think they saw it as an opportunity, was that Putin was not doing well and that Russia was a bit of a paper tiger.
	And then at that point, it opened the door of an opportunity for all these war hawks and these people who want to make a ton of money by selling and manufacturing weapons.
	You know what I wonder?
	I wonder, I'm sorry, let me just say this.
	I wonder if, you know how you feel about Iraq?
	Not just you.
	A lot of people on both sides feel about Iraq and how it was a waste of a war and then the way we got out of it and it cost us another $83 billion.
	We can go and talk from many different angles.
	I wonder what people will say about our level of support to Ukraine 10, 20 years from now.
	I am so curious.
	I'm so curious if it's going to be another one of those we should have never gone in or it's going to be we should have gone in more or if Trump was president, this would have never happened or the motives, the intentions, the reasoning.
	I don't think 100% we're going to know what's really going on there for a minute.
	Yeah, and I think we can and we'll never know what would have happened had we not provided Ukraine with the ability to stop Russia from making it part of a Russian empire and where would Putin's interest end at Ukraine?
	Certainly there's countries around that that don't feel that way.
	Well, I was revisiting your comment about how much support Biden has given and why he's doubling down and sending Yellen and sending Plinkin and selling all the latest was Merrick Garland.
	He's doubling down on this.
	Why do you think that is?
	Well, I think if I'm Putin, I'm thinking that, you know, I'm going to wait.
	I'm going to wait because if the administration changes, it's a change, right?
	Like, you know, if you don't like your situation, that's an old edict, right?
	If you don't like your situation, you wait and see, you know, there's going to be a change coming or possibly.
	And this is Biden trying to sort of like signify that we're not going to do that.
	There was reporting about Bakhmut where the Biden administration had told Ukraine, you got to cut your losses in Bakhmut because it's just not strategically necessary and you don't have the ability to do it.
	You don't have the ability to take over Crimea.
	You don't have the ability to do this.
	You just don't.
	Our analysts think that you don't have the ability to do it.
	But then, you know, it was almost like that got too much publicity and the Biden administration can't show that level of weakness.
	They need to show full commitment so that Putin thinks they're in for the long haul.
	I don't know.
	These games are horrible.
	Five minutes left.
	Let's do a quick speed run.
	What are your thoughts on Musk, what he's doing, his impact, Twitter, just Elon Musk, period?
	What are your thoughts about him?
	I don't know.
	Double the amount of anti-Semitism, according to a report, 40% loss of ad revenue as of December.
	I find it a lot less interesting of a place, frankly, Twitter.
	Long term, long term, is it going to end up being A.
	I think he's a bit of a charlatan.
	I think he sold a bunch of, like, I think a lot of, he's got problems with his, with the Tesla.
	And I think that like he's all, you know, he's admitted that his whole Hyperloop stuff was just a way to crash public transportation.
	He wanted to crash that high-speed rail.
	We've successfully helped derail it.
	I think that's not in the best interest of society.
	Is he a net positive to society?
	No.
	Come on.
	You don't think so?
	You don't think he's a net positive to society?
	No.
	So what do you think about all his Twitter files and all the showing the people what the government and everybody's really doing behind the scenes?
	Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing, especially with that situation and what the AI?
	I think he selectively leaked stuff on Twitter files.
	I think it's a problem when the president of the United States tries to silence somebody.
	They did this with the Smothers brothers.
	Nixon did it back in the day.
	I mean, yeah, I think that's bad.
	But I don't think that we see the whole story about what's going on there.
	Oh, I agree with that.
	What do you mean by that?
	What do you mean by that?
	I don't know.
	I mean, if you were going to, I mean, he's going to do what's in his interest, right?
	I mean, he's going to release what's in his best interest to release.
	Yeah, but some of the stuff about how they, you know, the New York Post story was held back and Twitter getting the emails and Matt Taibi.
	I'm sure you know who Matt Taibbi is.
	Of course.
	For Matt to come and for him to say, Matt's not a Republican.
	He's a Democrat.
	Yeah, for him to say it.
	No, I mean, Matt is a contrarian reporter.
	And I think, you know, Matt also said that he felt that RussiaGate was equivalent to the weapons of mass destruction lie.
	And to me, that's, you know, I think you could argue that, you know, parts of the media got it wrong, but it wasn't even remotely close.
	I thought that example.
	You don't think Russiagate was wrong?
	No, no, no.
	Who are you saying the level of iron?
	I mean, come on.
	Talking to hundreds of thousands of people.
	I get what you're saying.
	So you're saying the comparison is, is uh berserk to make that?
	Yeah, it was a threat to democracy.
	I'm not saying this is like the, the Snowden releases of the NSA.
	I'm sorry, this is a private company.
	You know, as a business guy, i'm sure your public relations people called up local channel 5 and said, don't run that story.
	Yeah, you know that happens all the time.
	Should the government be doing it?
	Absolutely not.
	But could Twitter have announced something?
	Could have?
	Twitter at that time said, the FBI contacted us.
	We're not going to give them this information.
	They could have yes, and they didn't.
	What are your thoughts on Jordan Peterson?
	Uh, I think Jordan Feners is a lunatic and I think his, I think his, his perspective on uh, on on women, is just twisted.
	Um, he might be good for you know, helping wayward uh kids who don't know how to make their bed, but I think that I think that a lot of his ideas are really incredibly toxic and bizarre.
	Frankly, what is it?
	What do you on women specifically?
	Oh, I mean just the the.
	You know i'm not a uh, a Jordan Petersonophile, but I just remember the last thing that I had talked about.
	That he had said was he was speculating that perhaps it was a detriment to women uh, not to, not for men to have some form of ownership stake.
	I think he was talking just sort of like you know broadly, like loose investment in relationship with them to protect them from uh, from rape, both statistically that's bizarre but also the idea that, like when and it wasn't that long ago that women were chattel of their husband, let's say in this country, or uh, women were property, rape wasn't even a crime against women,
	it was a crime against the owner of women.
	So, like it's, his stuff is completely ahistorical.
	And why do you think he has such a massive following?
	And what do you think about his followers?
	I, I mean, I don't know his followers, I don't know who they are.
	I imagine they're they're they're young people.
	But I mean, I think there's there's a bunch of reasons.
	I think that look, this is a um, it is a society is in a period of transition of uh, because people who have been marginalized, uh for the, at least in the context of American society, um have more of a voice, particularly through, like social media and this and that.
	But also um, I think like there's more of a voice in terms of like there's not as much hostility from uh law and this, and that was only 2013 when, when uh, there was marriage equality in this country.
	Um, and I think there's also a um, and I think that it makes it hard for some people to understand where they fit in.
	And I think there is a very strong message from fundamentalists in this country, religious fundamentalists who are um, you know white-knuckledly, holding on to their system of the way that uh society and families and people should be organized and uh their interpretation of gender and whatnot, because it's it's all perceived as a threat and and so I think, Within that milieu.
	And then I think there's other factors in terms of like money.
	There's money that sloshes around on the right that is helpful to things that push their ideology.
	So I think it's a combination of all those things.
	I think Jordan Peterson, you can't ever be 100% accurate on everything that you say without offending people.
	You're going to say some stuff that's going to offend people.
	I think he has helped a lot of young boys who have been lost the last 10, 20 years know a little bit more about what it is to be a man.
	The endless amount of stories of how that guy positively impacted people's lives is the numbers unbelievable how big it is.
	I've heard you say, I think, sir, someone told me that you're a data guy.
	Where is like, is that just anecdotes?
	Have you ever filled up an arena with 15,000 people?
	No, but Andrew Dice Clay did 30,000 people.
	But the difference is we went to Andrew Dice Clay for comedy, but people are going to Peterson for other reasons.
	Well, that doesn't necessarily mean it's having a positive impact on society.
	I think for men to be stronger is a positive impact on society in an era with so many fatherless homes that they don't have a man giving them direction.
	Thank God someone is giving them direction.
	Well, I worry about that guy.
	If people want direction, they can come to me.
	I'll give you a menu.
	Well, that would be a fun case to see you give mindset to 100 boys and him give mindsets to 100 boys, and we see what happens 20 years later.
	It's yours, by the way.
	And it'd be an interesting one.
	By the way, last one here.
	You could afford to set that up.
	I would be open to it.
	Another one is Jimmy Doer.
	We had Jimmy on.
	We had a lot of fun with him.
	I didn't know a lot about Jimmy.
	And then everybody said, hey, Jimmy, same way they're saying about you.
	I'm having a lot of fun having you on.
	I have Jimmy on an interesting guy.
	What do you think about Jimmy?
	Well, you know, Jimmy and I, I don't know that we were friends necessarily, but we were simpatico.
	And then in like 2016, he was saying stuff on his show.
	I think he was back on TYT at that time.
	He had another show.
	He was okay with Peter Thiel being a Supreme Court justice.
	He was talking about how Donald Trump was going to resurrect the Democratic Party and Donald Trump will get elected.
	And if he gets elected, we'll get Elizabeth Warren in 2020.
	I mean, these were all things that he had come up with.
	And, you know, I sent him an email.
	I said, look, you want to come on my show?
	We should talk about this because I think a lot of that stuff is crazy.
	And he said, no, no, no.
	And so I started, you know, he said, go ahead, rip me a new asshole.
	And so I played the clip.
	And then he must have been listening to the show because I take calls.
	I take live calls, unscreened calls.
	That's cool.
	Every day.
	And he calls in and we have a debate.
	And the guy Jimmy called in.
	Yeah, Jimmy called in from his car, I guess.
	And the guy didn't know anything about what he was talking about.
	He didn't know what a filibuster was.
	He made all these predictions.
	He said, I said, look, dude, you get Donald Trump in there.
	There's a chance you get three Supreme Court justices.
	He says, oh, that's like the moon could fall into Lake Michigan.
	Well, it turns out the moon fell into Lake Michigan.
	And we're going to feel the effects.
	I mean, for people, I don't know if it necessarily bothers you guys, but for me, the idea of like not just rolling back abortion, but the Voting Rights Act, I mean, government agencies that have the ability to do stuff, I mean, it's massive.
	I mean, it is a tidal wave.
	I don't think the American public.
	I don't think fully realize that could have been the single biggest thing a president has done to help their party the last 60 years, or it is the worst thing for the opposing party.
	McConnell, I think, gets that credit because McConnell was the one who would not even have a nomination hearing.
	They controlled the Senate, would not have a nomination hearing.
	He kept that in.
	That's McConnell.
	That's McConnell.
	I think that is the most understood reason why.
	Never in a million years would I have guessed you would have been a supporter of Mitch McCarthy given that kind of credit.
	Sam, I was ready for a lot.
	I wasn't ready for this one.
	You shook me a little bit.
	Sam, real fast about what to be done.
	Who do you think, besides Biden, if he does run again, if he could even make it, who would be the Democrat right now?
	Yeah, Sam.
	Right now, if you had to pick out of the entire Democratic Party pool, who would be, I know it's early as hell, but who would be their number one?
	Me and Adam, who we still haven't made this bet.
	We were betting that Gavin Newsom is going to be their number one.
	No, that's what we're doing.
	I mean, look, there's nobody I can name that I would want to be president in the Democratic Party right now.
	But I think that more than likely, it's someone like Pritzker in Illinois or Whitmer.
	I want to make it clear.
	This is not my picks.
	This is my assessment and analysis.
	I would say Pritzker, Whitmer, and maybe Shapiro in Pennsylvania.
	I would say those would be the ones that I would, if I had to place a bet, it would be one of those three.
	These are not, I should say, these are not my picks.
	You're guessing.
	These are like if I have to go bet, you know, my kids $5.29 on it.
	Got you.
	Fantastic podcast.
	Really enjoyed having you on.
	If you want to find more about Sam's podcast, hey, Rob, can we put the link below, please, so they can go find it?
	Put it in the chat.
	Put it in the description.
	Put it at the top so they can go find them.
	Do you want people to go to your website or do you want them to go to your YouTube channel?
	Whatever is comfortable for people.
	Okay.
	You right there.
	That's a good-looking guy right there.
	He looks like Hollywood stars.
	He looks like a Hollywood star.
	I'm a little bit lazy when it comes to promotion.
	I got to be honest with you.
	I'm not the best business.
	Go to YouTube.
	Go to the website.
	Hang out with capitalists.
	You'll get better at it.
	Whatever.
	People find it.
	So we are announcing today in the text who is going to be on the April 6th live podcast.
	If you want to find out who it is to purchase tickets at our next building, the Comedy Club and the Cigar Lounge.
	Text Award podcast to 310-340-1132.
	Again, text award podcast, not podcasts.
	Some people are doing plural, singular podcast to 310-340-1132.
	In less than an hour, we're going to text that group and let them know exactly who the guests are going to be on that podcast live.
	Looking forward to seeing many of you guys there.
	Sam, once again, appreciate you for coming.
	Thanks for having me.
	Appreciate it.
	Take care, everybody.
	Bye-bye.

▲