All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 2, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
30:52
David Bahnsen and Steve Moore - September 2nd, Hour 1

David Schoen, David Bahnsen and Steve Moore join Sean in this "Best of Sean Hannity" Podcast.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Hour two, Sean Hannity's show, toll free.
It's 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we have an update involving Joe Biden and Zero Experience Hunter.
Now, the laptop from hell has shown us a lot of things, not the least of which is Joe Biden lied repeatedly when he said he didn't have discussions with his son not one single time about his foreign business dealings.
I mean, clearly that was obvious when he leveraged a billion taxpayer dollars to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired, or else they weren't going to get the billion.
Son of a bee, they did it.
They fired him in six hours.
Just let you know that something's going on.
He knew his son was being investigated by that prosecutor.
We have a dual system of justice in America.
We don't have equal justice under the law anymore.
We don't have equal application of our laws anymore.
I've said this over and over again.
Just to refresh your memory, Joe Biden said over and over again, not one time.
Now, remember, we have pictures now of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and foreign business associates.
We have pictures of them.
Sounds like the family, the Biden syndicate, might be compromised.
But Joe said he never knew a thing.
But yet Hunter complains bitterly about paying all of his father's bills, complains bitterly about putting aside all the money for the big guy.
It's all there.
Tony Bobolinski was in on those meetings.
Nobody wants to talk to Tony Bobolinski.
Why not?
Anyway, just to refresh your memory.
How many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their businesses.
Period.
And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration.
There will be an absolute wall between personal and private and the government.
Do you stand by your statement that you did not discuss any of your son's overseas business?
Yes, I stand by that statement.
Yes, I stand by that statement.
Now, remember, you know, why did he get paid billions?
Why did he make millions from Russia?
Why did he get a $1.5 billion deal with the Bank of China?
Why are all these concessions to all these hostile regimes?
Why would you import oil from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, OPEC, when you can produce it all domestically?
You know, Putin has now cut back to 20% of the normal gas supplies that he was providing Germany in retaliation.
You'd think we'd learn the lesson from that, but apparently not.
Anyway, we now have a big story breaking.
Senator Charles Grassley, as well as Senator Ron Johnson, saying there's a cover-up that the FBI and DOJ tried to bury damning evidence against Hunter.
You know, it's been obvious since 2016.
The FBI is politicized.
Now under Merrick Garland, the DOJ is politicized.
The FBI's attempts to sabotage Trump's presidential election and his presidency.
It's over three plus years of never-ending lies.
Just the fact they abused FISA laws is one massive example.
But anyway, it looks like Grassley has developed several sources within the FBI, whistleblowers, that are telling him things that probably the FBI doesn't want public, that the FBI and the Justice Department have been accused of by highly credible whistleblowers of burying verified and verifiable dirt on President Biden's troubled son, Hunter, by correctly dismissing the intelligence as disinformation.
In other words, they're saying it's being done on purpose.
Grassley actually said the information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI's receipt and use of derogatory information related to Hunter Biden.
The FBI's false portrayal of acquired evidence is disinformation.
He wrote this to Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
You have an obligation to the country to take these allegations seriously.
Well, you would have taken it seriously years ago when Hunter went on GMA and admitted he had no experience, but yet he's being paid millions for his, what, portraits of a crack addict.
He makes money on art.
You know, here you have a crack addict and a guy that likes prostitutes with no experience in energy, oil, gas, or Ukraine, but he's getting paid millions.
Who else would want this deal?
This is what he said to GMA.
When he said, I hope you know what you're doing, what did he think you were doing?
Well, he read the press reports that I joined the board of Burisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company.
And there's been a lot of misinformation about me, not about my dad.
Nobody buys that, but it buys this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.
What were your qualifications to be on the board of Burisma?
Well, I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years.
I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Program.
I was a lawyer for Boyce Schiller-Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.
You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though.
No.
But I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board, if not more.
Oh, no good.
But why do you think you got all that money?
I don't know.
Maybe because your father's in charge.
Yeah, that's it.
David Schonas with us.
By the way, he's also representing Steve Bannon in his most recent case.
We'll ask him about that in a second.
So now you've got whistleblowers.
It sounds like from within the FBI saying that the Biden, FBI, and DOJ are burying damning evidence on Hunter.
Yeah, it's really pretty shocking stuff.
But, you know, it's what results when we have no checks and balances anymore.
You have Congress working hand in hand to cover up these stories.
They're perfectly happy with it happening.
Remember, there are no policy initiatives from the Democratic side right now.
So you have things like January 6th Committee is their policy initiative and covering up any bad news.
But you have to take a step back, I think.
We talked about the investigation that President Donald Trump called for into the Ukraine situation with Hunter Biden years ago.
That got him impeached, asking for an investigation.
That tells you how seriously Democratic side takes these things.
And you covered it back then, and you exposed all of these things back then.
But we have a bad institutional memory.
It's all coming around now, full circle.
And now we see, fortunately, we have people like Senators Grassley and Johnson who are going to point it out.
To me, Merrick Garland is one of the biggest disappointments.
I know many people felt when the Supreme Court nomination came up, he wasn't qualified and so on.
I had a case in front of him, thought he was a legitimate judge and all that.
He's been completely politicized now in this Justice Department.
Some of the comments he's made, it's shocking to me, but there seems to be no end to it.
I think that, you know, Jerry Nather summed this all up a long time ago when he said, we can't trust the voters.
I think that was sort of a green light for all of this kind of corruption that goes on.
I have no doubt while all these people that lied to the FISA court know, why do I believe if I lied to a FISA court and I told the court that information is verified when it's completely unverifiable and demonstrably false, which it became, which everybody knew, and then they still continued to file the new FISA warrants or extensions to the original FISA application.
And if I lied to a court, why do I think I'd probably be in jail whether I had you, a great attorney that you are, or an army of great attorneys?
I don't think any of you can keep me out of prison.
Listen, we've seen that double standard with everything.
I mean, how many, Enron was prosecuted for obstruction of justice by Andrew Weissman and Lisa Monaco, the current deputy attorney general.
But Hillary Clinton destroyed all of those emails.
Nothing happened.
We've seen this double standard, I mean, in shocking terms all across the board.
And you're 100% right to keep focusing on the FISA applications because these were lies to get the most intrusive surveillance on American citizens and others that our technology allows.
If you would lie there, you're going to continue to lie.
You have no credibility.
All right.
Let's talk about the case.
And I've known you for many, many years.
And I watched pretty closely the case involving Steve Bannon being held in contempt by the January 6th committee.
And it looked like even before you walked into the courtroom, every avenue that you would pursue in terms of a legal defense was shut down by the judge right from the get-go.
So you really didn't have the ability to put on the defense you would have liked to have put on.
And I heard your comments after the verdict.
You didn't put on a defense in that case.
I think I know why, because I think you basically figured that it's already a foregone conclusion on terms of the verdict because you couldn't put the defense forward that you wanted, and you were planning on an appeal at that point.
Am I wrong?
You're 100% right.
You know, one week before the trial started, the judge ruled on our motions to dismiss and barred every defense in the case.
I made a decision at that point, and I said to the judge, by doing this, you will require me to provide ineffective assistance of counsel.
I made a decision that I would not participate.
I was hired as lead counsel in the case.
I made a decision I would not participate in opening or closing or in the examination of witnesses under those circumstances with all defenses barred.
I raised the legal issues, and I continue to do that.
And we will win the appeal in the case.
But yes, the judge, listen, Steve Bannon got the subpoena.
His lawyer wrote a letter saying he wants to comply.
Executive privilege has been invoked.
If you'll take us before a judge and a judge orders the privilege is not valid or not so broad, I will testify.
I will give you the documents, period.
They chose not to do that.
That's the normal course of things.
Go to a civil enforcement proceeding.
By the way, people need to know the history of this.
This has not happened since 1974.
And G. Gordon Liddy, just so people understand, historically, this doesn't happen.
Eric Holder was never charged in the case when he was held in contempt at Congress.
There's a whole host of Democrats that were held in contempt at Congress, and nothing ever happens to them.
And before this administration, the Justice Department has had a policy for at least six decades, back to the 50s, that when executive privilege is invoked, this criminal statute will not apply, and Congress may not pursue it.
Executive privilege is entitled to a presumption of validity.
It's not for Congress to decide whether it applies or how broadly it applies.
But yeah, so that's the background.
President Trump invoked executive privilege.
Here's the question, though, that I think would be relevant, considering that Steve Bannon had been out of the administration.
And I've known Steve Bannon for years, and we usually get along, not always, but we usually get along.
I have a lot of respect for him.
He could have walked in.
He could have pled the fifth, walked out, and they couldn't lay a hand on him.
He chose not to do that, which means he was willing to go to the mat for what he believes here.
And I respect people that stand on their principles.
I really do.
So he could have had an easy out here.
He chose not to.
Why?
100% right.
He said he would never take the fifth.
He said he wanted to testify.
They don't want to hear Steve Bannon's testimony.
That's clear because even now when President Trump removed privilege on July 9th, Bannon's lawyer wrote another letter saying he wants to testify.
He wants to comply with a subpoena now.
But he'd like to do it publicly.
They said, oh, no, no, you don't set the rules.
You'll come in.
You'll do it privately just with us.
We'll decide if it goes public.
The last thing they want is to.
And then they'll cut dice and slice it like they did with everybody else's.
Now, I've called for them to release all of the interviews in full from all the people that they brought in and let the public see it that way rather than filtered through a committee of people, all of whom hate Donald Trump and voted to impeach him.
That's right.
And not just the committee.
Remember, we have a television executive who is hired specifically to produce this circus of the hearings going on.
So the American public is seeing fully edited snippets that this committee of complete Trump haters wants to show them.
What I say is the committee, unfortunately, is illegitimate from the start.
You cannot pick an entire committee of all one political mindset.
Let me stay on the law issue, though, for just a second here, because I think this is an important question.
Because he had left the administration, and this is post-his time in the administration.
Does executive privilege in that circumstance still apply?
I just don't know the legal aspect of it.
There's no question executive privilege applies, and the Justice Department has an opinion directly on that, an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
The question is whether this sort of immunity or whether the obligation to appear before the committee doesn't apply.
Because the Justice Department has said, if you're a former executive branch member or current executive branch member, you cannot be forced to appear, and the criminal statute doesn't apply.
Quick break more with Attorney David Schoen on the other side.
Then we'll get to your calls, 800-941-Sean.
Our number, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll update you more in this horrific economic news.
Today's just bad day one of the bad news.
So many people are getting pinched financially right now.
You see what's happening.
You see the price of gas.
You see record high inflation.
Consumer confidence at an all-time low.
It's a no-risk money-back guarantee, the exact same service, half off, pound 250.
Keyword, save now.
If you do it now, you'll get an additional 50% off your first month from our friends of Pure Talk.
All right, we continue with David Schoen, former counsel for President Trump and civil liberties attorney, now the counsel for Steve Bannon.
What is the next step in this?
Obviously, it's an appeal.
Where do you appeal to, and how high up can you possibly take this?
Would it maybe make it to the Supreme Court, which I think would be a fascinating case?
Yeah, many scholars have said that it will go to the Supreme Court.
Alan Dershowitz has said you'll absolutely win the appeal.
The question is whether you get a good panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where we go next, or you have to go to the Supreme Court.
By the way, I don't wish you a lot of luck in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
I understand, but listen, we have a remarkable situation in this case.
This judge, the question turns on willfully.
The statute requires you to willfully violate it.
This judge said that he's bound by a 1961 decision that says willfully in this case only means did you get a subpoena and did you not go?
It doesn't matter your reasons.
So this jury was instructed, you may not consider Steve Bannon's reasons, advice of counsel, executive privilege.
You can't consider any of those things.
But here's what the judge said.
Because he obviously, you know, he had a conscience.
He's a bright guy.
He said, as I've stressed many times, I have serious reservations that the Court of Appeals' interpretation of willfully is consistent with the modern understanding of the word.
It's not consistent with modern case law surrounding the use of that term, let alone the traditional definition of the word.
That's a focus of the appeal.
Every criminal statute we have requires, thank God, that for any American citizen to be convicted of a crime in this country, you have to at least believe or known or had reason to know you were doing something unlawful or wrong.
Steve Bannon thought he was complying with the law.
His lawyer told him, you may not comply with this subpoena.
Your hands are tied.
This is a fight between Trump and Congress.
He followed what he understood to be the law.
We don't allow people to go to prison under those circumstances, but that's what this jury was told.
So that's going to be the fundamental question.
And that's why you chose not to put on a defense and just go to the next level.
I got it.
Yes, sir.
Anyway, David Schoen, friend of the program, a great lawyer in his own right.
We watched him during the second impeachment.
Thank you, sir, for being with us.
We always learn something when you're on.
Appreciate you being with us.
Keep up the great work.
Thank you so much.
Quick break right back.
Your calls on the other side.
Straight ahead.
You are listening to the best of the Sean Hannity Show, and stay tuned.
More memorable moments, interesting guests, and a lot of fun coming up next.
We've been spending a lot of time on this program, and we've been talking about how bad the economy is and what it means for you, what it means for your family.
And we've gone through a list of people that are suffering.
Today was the first bit of bad news that we got this week.
Consumer confidence declining now, the third straight month.
We'll find out how much the Fed is going to raise interest rates tomorrow.
We're expecting 0.75 basis points, three-quarters of a point, in other words.
You know, one thing I pointed out earlier is that if you calculated inflation as they calculated it in the 1980s, it'd be over 17%.
You got to understand this, this is a really important point.
We're at 9.1% consumer price index, the indication of inflation.
Now, remember, Biden inherited 1.4% of CPI, and the actual number is much, much higher.
Even President Trump said this in a speech in, what did he say, out in Arizona?
And on average, now we see a couple, an average couple, paying Biden inflation at the cost of $6,800 a year.
And if you drive to work, it's about another $2,000 a year you're paying in gas because of Joe's energy stupidity and his dumb policies of reducing the world supply while demand remains constant or even higher.
But the former president didn't give his own estimate for the true rate of inflation when calculated.
If you use the same methodology that our government used in the 80s, inflation 17.3%, which would actually be a 75-year high.
Now they're trying to change the name, the definition of recession ahead of Thursday's numbers, GDP numbers.
You know, Steve Moore is going to join us in a second.
He had a pretty funny list.
I mentioned it in the last half hour.
You know, Democrats have tried to redefine, okay, what a recession is, what the definition of peaceful is, what the definition of a woman is, what the definition of a secure border means, what transitory means.
And government, they never say they spend money.
They're always investing money.
Well, that's investing your money.
That's spending.
Just like invading Ukraine.
Well, if it's only a minor incursion, still an invasion.
And, you know, it's kind of like this Alice in Wonderland thinking that they have.
But the bottom line is every aspect of our economy is getting hurt.
The poor, the middle class, people on fixed incomes are getting clobbered.
I went through all those numbers at the beginning of the program.
I'm not going to do it again.
You know, Joe Biden saying this week we're not going to see a recession.
I think we're going to, I'm betting if the Atlanta Fed is predicting negative 1.6% growth for quarter number two, the definition of a recession is very simple.
Two quarters, two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
So if the Atlanta Fed is right, we will be officially in a recession no matter what they say.
So Joe says it's not going to be a recession, and Karine Jean-Pierre refuses to give a definition of recession.
Listen, Mr. President, we're getting GDP numbers on Thursday.
How worried should Americans be that we could be in a recession?
We're not going to be in a recession.
In my view, the employment rate is still one of the lowest we've had in history.
It's in the 3.6 area.
We still find ourselves with people investing.
My hope is we go from this rapid growth to steady growth.
And so we'll see some coming down.
But I don't think we're going to, God willing, I don't think we're going to see a recession.
But based on what the president said earlier, have his economic advisors told him they also don't think a recession is likely?
And what is exactly the White House's definition of a recession?
Again, we don't, I'm not going to define it from here.
I'm just going to leave it to the NBER as we have stated of how they define recession.
Recession.
I don't declare one until they have declared one.
I'm just saying that we're just not going to define it.
We use the indicators that the NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has used.
We've mentioned that a few times.
All right, joining us now, Steve Moore was a member of President Trump's Economic Recovery Task Force, author of Trumponomics Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy.
David Bonson back with us, founding managing partner, the Bonson Group, author of There's No Free Lunch, 250 Economic Truths.
Thank you both for being with us.
Steve, I kind of got a kick out of your list of new definitions for everything, but the reality is two-thirds of Americans are gulping water, barely surviving, and it's getting worse for them every day.
Yeah, the inflation numbers are so bad that it almost sounds insulting to the American people and completely out of touch when the White House says, oh, things are just fine.
We're not really in a recession.
When you have 80% of Americans who say the economy is headed in the wrong direction, and by the way, Sean, those are worse numbers than they were at the depths of Jimmy Carter's recession.
So that's how Americans understand the ditch that we're in right now.
And I have to say this, having worked for Donald Trump on the economy, and so I'm a little biased, but I honestly believe, Sean, if we just stuck with the Trump policies, the economy would be booming today.
When we talk about a recession, you know, we've got people finally going back to work.
We've got restaurants reopening.
We've got people going back to the movie theaters.
So there's no reason that we're in this ditch except that Biden changed all the Trump policies that were working.
And as you said, the worst was shutting off our energy production.
We wouldn't have to be, by the way, Sean, we wouldn't have to be drawing down our reserves right now of the street.
Or selling them to China, which was a really brilliant move to pay back for, I guess, all the money Hunter made.
But go ahead.
Well, I was just going to say that we should be producing about three or four million more barrels a day, and we would be completely energy independent.
You wouldn't have the problem that Europe has right now because we could be exporting some of this stuff, and we wouldn't be depleting our energy reserves.
I mean, my gosh, hurricane season is coming up.
What if we have a hurricane that knocks out one of our major refineries or one of our major pipelines?
Then what are we going to do?
We're pretty close to running on empty here, Sean.
It's that serious.
I agree with you.
David Bonson, welcome back to you, sir.
Looking at these numbers, I put my money on the Atlanta Fed over Joe Biden, and the fact that they want to change the definition of recession is a little appalling to me.
I find it pretty or welly in 1984-ish, but that's who they are.
Yeah, look, it's a tricky thing in this sense.
I expect politicians to lie, cheat, steal, and spin.
And, you know, the NBR.
We have very high expectations, I'll tell you.
Yeah, well, experience is a great teacher.
I believe that NBR's definition is a problem.
When they say it's two quarters in a row of contraction along with other deterioration in wages and employment, they leave it as a gray area.
And there's no reason.
These economists are funny.
They say that economics is math and science and that these central planners can get everything right.
But then when it comes to defining recession, all of a sudden they resort to some gray area type definition.
You know, Sean, politically it's irrelevant.
If there's two quarters in a row of a negative GDP print, even with 3.6% unemployment, it's going to hurt Biden.
That's just not going to matter.
Lawrence Summers says, unless we have a year at 10% unemployment, we're not getting out of this fast.
And we need multiple years of...
I want to be clear.
Larry's wrong about that because Larry is wrong that what you need in inflation area periods is to go attack growth.
What the supply siders of the 80s taught us is that you could actually help the economy to take down inflation.
I agree.
Reagan did it simultaneously.
And I was going to make that point.
Created 20 million new jobs, the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history.
So you're right on all points.
You know, I'm just looking at the impact.
They're not going to change their energy policy.
So we're going to keep the world supply of the lifeblood of the world's economy.
We're going to keep it artificially reduced.
Here's my prediction.
Tell me, and I've been saying it for two months now on this program.
Once the housing market really gets impacted here, let's say they go up maybe a full basis point tomorrow in the Fed with interest rates.
Okay.
Now we're talking about a 30-year mortgage somewhere close to the 7% mark for a 30-year fixed mortgage.
New home construction, I predict Steve Moore will come to a screeching halt.
Sale of pre-existing homes will stop.
Nobody's going to want to give up their 2.8% mortgage or their 3.75% mortgage, whatever it happens to be.
And nobody's going to want to pay 7%.
So those sales will come to a screeching halt.
Home values will begin to tank quickly.
And then we'll really feel the impact even greater because that's all going to happen in the next six, nine, 12 months.
Well, I hope you're wrong, Sean, but you very well may be right.
I'm nervous about that too.
And we saw what happened in 2008.
What are the odds that I'm right?
Well, you know, those rates are going to go up, and we're already seeing a little bit of a slowdown in the housing and the housing.
Yeah, it's a pretty significant slowdown.
Yeah, so I think that, and look, I'll just give you a personal example.
My wife and I looked at our 401k plan.
Don't forget about the stock market.
That's a catastrophe this year as well.
So we lost several hundred thousand dollars and I'm not rich in our retirement savings.
And so we said, well, at least we got a lot of equity in our house.
But if those home values go down, you know, you're going to have families like the Moore family that, well, what happened to all our money?
Quick break, more on the economy with Steve Moore and David Bonson on the other side, 800-941.
Sean, our number will take your calls.
Anyway, one way to save money, and this is the great thing that our friends at AmericanFinancing.net are offering.
We know interest rates are going up.
We're going to have another rate increase tomorrow.
866-615-9200.
On the web, it's AmericanFinancing.net.
American Financing, NMLS, 1-82334-NMLS ConsumerAccess.org.
All right, more on the economy.
Bad news today, consumer confidence down.
We'll see how many basis points the Fed raises interest rates tomorrow.
And then on Thursday, we'll find out officially if we're in a recession.
The Atlanta Fed is predicting negative growth at 1.6%.
We'll see if they're right or if Joe Biden's right that we're not going to hit a recession.
But that would be, by definition, a recession.
What's going to happen, in your view, David Bonson, to the real estate market?
Am I right?
Am I wrong?
Am I in the middle?
Where am I?
Well, I don't want Steve Moore and his wife to feel poor, but I have to say if home prices come down a little bit, I think that might be a good thing because they're in a bubble.
They went up too much too fast.
And I don't think Steve and his wife were really getting richer when the market, the housing prices went up 25% artificially in the last couple of years.
And I don't think that's a good idea.
But by the way, David, I know people that sold their homes in the last year at a massive profit.
And they cashed out.
They would put their home up for sale.
They'd have three, four, 15 offers over asking the same day.
Those days are dead.
They're over.
And they should be dead.
They weren't good.
And the Fed created it with artificially low rates.
But back to my supply side agenda that you both agree with.
Well, our problem is that we are not doing enough to facilitate the building of new houses.
We need to clear the market.
And you have a supply-demand imbalance because the governors like Newsom in California put so many restrictions on building new houses, so many crazy environmental regulations.
That's the way you right-size the housing market.
Don't let the Fed manipulate it.
Let's build more.
But David, the problem is, is, all right, if you were getting a 3%, 30-year fixed mortgage, and now you're going to get a 7%, 30-year fixed mortgage, you guys do the math, the half a million-dollar home.
How much more per month are you going to be paying just in interest?
It's going to be, what, $2,100?
$1,500?
The solution, Sean.
I know the solution is I don't want the Fed picking the rate.
It shouldn't be $3 and it shouldn't be $7.
The buyers and sellers can figure out what the rate should be.
And $7 is too high.
That's three is too low.
When has that ever happened in modern history?
That's not the way it works.
Once the Fed raises interest rates, it's going to go up across the board, is it not?
It's been going up.
I think that mortgage rates are probably going to peak soon, but they're peaking at a level that is very high compared to what people are used to.
I think that the reality is people that need a 2% mortgage to buy a home can't afford the home they're buying.
So they created a bubble.
And now, all of a sudden, we care about housing prices being too high because people's kids, grandkids, they can't afford to buy a home.
So I'm just saying that there's two sides to it.
I don't want to give you a business.
There is, but here's the point, too.
Who's going to want to give up a 3% 30-year mortgage for a 7% 30-year mortgage?
Nobody.
Yeah.
Well, that's true.
And, you know, people can't refinance.
You know, that was a big part of the housing boom and the banking boom was the refinancing.
Nobody's going to refinance at higher interest rates.
I'm worried.
I'm with you, Sean.
I am worried about this bubble.
And, you know, David's right, there's been a bit of a bubble.
But we should have learned from 2006 and 7008 that when the Fed allows these bubbles top, boy, it can cause real pain and suffering.
I mean, remember how banks, big banks, I don't know if you think this could happen, David, but remember the Bear Sterns and companies like that, really, literally in 72 hours, they were out of business.
So I hope I'm wrong, but those kind of financials.
I'm not sure that we made that same mistake, and that was lowering the standards for applicants in terms of their ability to get mortgages.
And I have been reading that a lot of banks have actually been preparing for the possibility of a lot of foreclosures, which I hope doesn't happen to anybody.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
All right, we're going to let you both go.
Stephen Moore.
Now, by the way, David Bonson has a brand new free introduction to economics class.
What is it?
Online?
Yes, it is.
Online, free.
We want people to learn economics supply side the right way as God understood it to be.
What is the real quick one sentence each?
What do you recommend people do now?
I'm saying save money wherever you can.
And if you can bring in extra money, find a way.
What do you say, Steve?
I say continue to work hard.
If you don't have a job, better get one while they're out there.
And I don't think I'd sell the stock market right now because the prices have fallen already so much.
David?
Wake up every day and be as productive as you can be because that's what God made you to be.
Be productive and it solves a lot of financial problems too.
It does.
Maybe instead of working a 40-hour week, join the rest of us.
Work 70, 80, 90 hours.
And I know that people don't like to hear that advice, but that's what I do.
Anyway, thank you both.
David Bonson, Steve Moore.
I've done that my whole life.
Just keep working, working, working.
Anyway, when I was a contractor, I remember I would work through the night if I could.
▲
Export Selection