Speaker 1: And Hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast
on this Wednesday, today, the fourteenth day of January. You're
of our Lord twenty twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan,
and we've got a lot of a lot of information
today to update you with Greenland. What's going on there,
It's no, it's not funny. I mean, there's some real
serious talks going on credit cards, capping the interest rates
on credit cards. But let's start with the real tense
story of the day, that is about Iran. And we've
been watching this build and we've been watching people having
a hard time, but they're getting the information out to
the world about the protests that are going on in
the streets of at least Tehran and who knows where
else within the country of Iran. So I've seen estimates
of a couple thousand people have been massacred, that they're
scheduled executions, there's hangings, all of that going on, and
I number of people speculating about the real status over there,
and the President has weighed in this afternoon. But let's
start with a woman. Her name is Hally Degress. She
has family there in Iran. She's been trying to communicate
with them. This is what she had to say.
Speaker 2: Well, as the viewers might know, since Thursday there was
an internet shutdown, communications shutdown. We were unable to reach
our families via phone line for days, and it was
only yesterday did I received call from family in Tehran
that were on static, which it was saying. They were
saying that they were fine, but they weren't communicating much
about the developments on the ground. But what we're receiving
now from brave Iranians via Starlink via some of those
calls is that what the scenes are horrific. There was
a killing spree. The Tehran's largest cemetery, Beihesh Tazahra, is over.
They're deciding that they're not even going to charge for
the graves, that they're not even going to charge for
the burial shrouds because of how costs, because of how
many bodies have piled up. And I should note that
there's credible documentation that there's over twelve thousand that have
been killed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nobody really knows how many people have been killed,
but the numbers are large. And yet this is an
uprising that well, we've seen this movie before and nothing happens.
We don't lift a finger to help, so is just
really all that different.
Speaker 2: What I was saying is that we've had cyclical anti
regime protests for years now, and instead of heeding the
calls to the Iranian people that they want no longer
want this regime, we've decided we're always going to push
for diplomacy and live with the status quo. And given
the events in the post October seventh world, the maming
of the proxies of the Islamic Republic, the fall of
its top ally Bashar Alasad, the outcome of the Twelve
Day War that has left its nuclear program in shambles,
and of course the domestic events on the ground where
Iranians are unable to feed their families and they're running
out of water and tear on at some point, at
least according to some reports, it's created a dynamic where
it seems that it's on the path to regime collapse.
And it's not just something I've said. We've had Iran
expert carrying Sajat Poor and Jack Goldstone, an expert on
revolutions and social upright and saying that for the first
time in the Islamic Republic's forty seven year history, they've
checked all five boxes for regime collapse this winter.
Speaker 1: So this time they're reaching out to people of tran
that are protesting, are reaching out specifically to President Trump
to please help them.
Speaker 2: It's hard to read exactly what the protesters want, given
that we're unable to contact them, but I have to
say that before the communications shut down, there were videos
a protesters changing the signs that in Tehran, for example,
to President Trump and making plea videos and asking for help.
And I've seen at least one video of a protester
that fled the country that's going viral and he's talking
about the massacre that's happening under this dark internet shutdown,
and it's asking for help. So you're hearing different messages
right now. And I think there is an expectation once
you start making those kind of comments. As president of
the United States, I think there is an expectation, at
least from Sammy Iranian said he is going to make
good on that promise.
Speaker 1: And the President has been very strong on his comments
about keep the protest going, try to overthrow the regime.
We are there for you. Help is on the way,
So he's making promises. Michael Allen, former National Security Council
senior official, weighs in with his thoughts.
Speaker 3: Well, I agree with the sentiment express These are incredibly
difficult massacres that are going on. The people of Iran
are being struck down. The regime has its back against
the wall, and I think they are really prosecuting everybody
to the maximum. And I think this puts President Trump's
pledges to do something front and center. I think what
they're doing is trying to figure out what would be
the target set. Would it be instruments of Iranian repression,
like the police or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These
are just, in a word, the thugs of the regime.
Who are the ones in the past who've been on
motorcycles and now are you know, shooting people from the
tops of buildings. So I think this is a crucial
moment in this in this would be revolution, and I
think the United States may need to get involved to
put this to a tipping point. I think it's one
of these things. When public, well they'll say no, we
don't want you to, But in private, as long as
it's going to be effective, I think they're for it.
You know, no one is really friends with the Iranian
regime so much anymore, especially in its decline. So you
know what, I think that they would be happy to
see it go. I think they just want it to
be decisive, and I think that's what President Trump and
the National Security Council are going through, how to make
this an effective regime strike.
Speaker 1: So you're ready for another hot spot in the world.
We just took Maduro out of Venezuela, but that thing
is still very unstable there. We've got the missile strikes
against Syria. We've got the ISIS people in Syria. I
should say, we go around the world to all these places,
and now Iran is boiling up to a very hot spot.
Admiral Stevritez, former NATO commander, says, this is how he
sees it.
Speaker 4: I'll give you three things. Number one, he could up
the economic pressure on Iran. This really is the Achilles Heel.
This is why these protests are rising. Yes they want freedom,
yes they want to live their lives, but the economy
is collapsing. We could put a lot more pressure on
them by using secondary sanctions, meaning if you do business
with Iran, we will sanction you or put new tariffs
on particularly China for example. So economic number two informational,
figure out how to get the voices of the protesters
out into the world. This is happening very imperfectly, but
using starlink, using air dropped means that allow direct communication.
Get into the information war with the idea of getting
the protester stories. And I think it is not a
thousand or two thousand, I would guess somewhere between five
and ten thousand have been killed already. Get that story
out there. That's important. And then number three and most directly,
military strikes. And here you don't have to carpet bomb
the entire country. You could conduct very precise strikes, going
after leadership targets I would say, up to and in
looting the Ayatola, but also leading members of the Revolutionary Guards,
and take it even down to the street level. Go
after the police stations, go after the individuals who are
conducting these crackdowns. All of that, those are three key things.
And final thought, cyber. You can use cyber to go
in and really put additional economic pressure dismantle the ability
of the regime to go after these protesters using cyber.
So the president has plenty of tools.
Speaker 1: So the options he laid out pretty carefully. But the
question is how fast can all this happen? I mean,
they are literally killing people every single day. They have
hanging scheduled in the town squares every single day. How
fast can we operate if we want to try to
do regime change in Iran?
Speaker 4: I think almost immediately. And this is why the President
evidently in the last day or so, has received a
briefing on all the options available to him. His decision
stace is closing, and frankly, as we all know, the
Iranians have a habit of very publicly hanging these protesters
literally by the neck from Gurney's in town squares. If
they were to move to that, I think the President
would have to respond immediately in order to maintain credibility.
My guess is we are going to do so in
some way, probably in the next two to three days,
in less Iranian behavior suddenly changes, which seems unlikely.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid the Admiral's right. I mean, this is promises
made by the President that we keep protesting. Help is
on the way, and well, what is he going to do?
And he's got all the options handed to him. Brett
Velosovich he's a former Army Special Operations soldier. Lees looking
at it from.
Speaker 5: Special Ops right, well, I mean, let me just say,
the numbers coming out of Iran are staggering. They're morally heartbreaking.
I mean the scale which protesters are dying. If even
a fraction of the reported twelve thousand killed is accurate,
this is no longer a protest crackdown. This is a massacre.
This is a mass slaughter carried out by a regime
that is completely forfeited any claim to legitimacy. This is
Tianeman Square on steroids, and it's happening in real time,
and our soldiers in the region will be affected by
this in the long run. I mean right now, though,
the Iranian people to deserve our support more than ever.
When a government has to beat, jail, murder, silence its
own citizens just to stay in power, it's already lost
its legitimacy. There's no going back at this point. But
here's the key point. The Iranian people aren't chanting death
to America. They chanting against their own rulers. They're telling
the world they want freedom, not clerics with guns, and
that matters. And even when kids are willing to face
bullets for freedom. Your line is clear. We need to
help them. The United States the beacon of freedom in
the world. We should never sit back and be neutral
between a totalitarian regime and civilians who are being executed
in a mass for demanding basic rights. We can't be
silent in these moments, pretend it's or strength. I simply
not doing anything right now is like being complicit.
Speaker 1: So we need to ratchet up this pressure.
Speaker 5: We need to help them before it's too late, because
history tells us moments like this don't last forever. And frankly,
we're the administration does here. The approach matters. We need
to put pressure. He needs to be applied where accounts.
Trump has real strength in this region. He's highly respected
out there where past presidents weren't, and we need to
send a warning that we are with these protesters and
help them in any way that we can.
Speaker 1: So I like this afternoon, President had a meeting in
the Oval Office. They had a number of topics there
and he opened it up to the media and they
were asking him about what are you going to do?
What are you going to do about Iran? And here's
what the President had.
Speaker 6: To say, Mister President Luran, you said that the killing stop.
Who told you that the killer We have.
Speaker 7: Been we have been informed by very important sources on
the other side, and they've said they're killing the stuff
and the executions won't take place. There was supposed to
be a lot of executions today and that the executions
won't take place. And we're going to find out. I mean,
I'll find out after this. You'll find out. But we've
been told on good authority, and I hope it's true.
Who knows?
Speaker 4: Who knows?
Speaker 6: So how do you try to know?
Speaker 7: You've seen that over the last few days and they
said people were shooting at them with guns and they
were shooting back, and you know, it's one of those things.
But uh, they told me that there will be no executions,
and so I hope that's true.
Speaker 8: Does this mean military action is now off the table
against Iran.
Speaker 7: No, We're going to watch it and see what the
process is. But we were given a very good, very
good statement by people that are aware of what's going
on considering military actions. They say no executions. Everyone was
talking about a lot of executions were taking place today.
We were just tell no executions. I hope that's true.
That's a big thing has.
Speaker 1: Been Yeah, I hope it's true. Too. Interesting the way
he answered that question. He says, well, we've been told
by people that the executions have stopped and the shooting
has stopped, and we hope so. Or it was with
the question mark and you know that the president, you
know that the White House has back channels. They're talking
to the Iranian leaders. People are in back channel conversations,
so maybe the Iranians have actually stopped. But he also
said we'll find out and then we'll see. So this
isn't put to bed yet by a long stretch. Another
foreign policy story that hasn't been put to bed is
Greenland and the foreign minister is his name, Lars Rasmussen,
the Danish Foreign Minister, and Vivian Mottsfeld, who is the
foreign affairs minister for Greenland. We're both at the White
House today. They met with Jade Evans, the Vice President,
and with Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, and afterward
they came out and had this to say.
Speaker 9: Our in was to find a joint way forward to
increase Arctic security. What can the Kingdom of Denmark do more?
What can us do more? What can nature do more?
The Kingdom of Denmark has already stepped up our own
contribution by commissing additional fund from military capabilities, not dog slates,
but ships, drones, fighter jets, et cetera, and we are
definitely ready to do more. The US has already why
military access to Greenland under the ninety fifty one Defense Agreement.
The US can always ask for increasing its presence in Greenland,
and therefore we wish to hear if the US had
any further request to make in this aspect, we would
examine any such request constructibly. Greenland is, through the Kingdom
of Denmark, a member of NATAL, and has been that
since the very founding of NATAL in forty nine, and
is therefore also covered by Article five. We have been
pushing for quite a while in NATAL for a stronger
collective role in Greenland, together with a number of allies,
and we are eager to work with the US on
advancing this agenda, and we are prepared to go further. Therefore,
our aim was to find a common understanding on all
these points and to launch, if possible, further in debt
work to deliver on them. On this basis, we had
what I will describe as a frank but also constructive discussion.
The discussions focused on how to insure the long term
security in Greenland, and here our perspectives continue to defer.
I must say the President has made his view clear
and we have a different position. The Kingdom of Denmark
continue to believe that also the long term security of
Greenland can be insured inside the current framework the nineteen
fifty one Agreement on the Defense of Greenland as well
as the Nature Treaty for US. Ideas that would not
respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the
right of self determination of the Greenlandic people are of
course totally unacceptable and we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement.
But we also agreed to disagree and therefore we will,
however continue to talk. We have decided to form a
high level working group to explore if we can find
a common way forward. The group, in our you should
focus on how to address the American security concerns while
at the same time respecting the red lines of the
Kingdom of Denmark. We expect that such a group will
meet for the first time within a matter of weeks,
and then I will pass the floor to my colleague
from Greenland biban mostart well.
Speaker 1: In other words, the mini didn't go well. They have
a disagreement, and so therefore they're going to have a
working group to work on this. And I don't I
can't see President Trump, he becomes very impatient on things
like this. To see him sitting around watching a group
of diplomats having working talking sessions. Andrews Vistagan he's a
member of the European Union Parliament and that's essentially mostly
a bunch of far left people, and he weighed in
on how Europe is looking at this move by the
United States.
Speaker 8: It's frankly quite hard to see how the president can
be so misguided and frankly not very informed about the situation.
Greenland already is a member of NATO, and USA have
gone from having fifteen thousand troops stationed there to only
one hundred and fifty at the moment. That's a US
un alesteral decision not to be there. So it was
important for the security of the US. Why have they
were drawn? The fact of the matter is that the
President is very offensive towards the Kingdom of Denmark and
towards his European allies, and the Kingdom and that is
a big problem and that fundamentally challenged the status with Nature,
NATO and our defensive alliance. I don't think he really
wants to use military force, but I think it is
a clear mistake by the Damies and Greenland government to
go to Washington to a meeting when they're threatened with
this thread of military invasion. I think, quite frankly that
they should stay away until the time whether the US
administration makes it clear, let theren't be no military intervention.
And I think then much should consider to go even
further and close down the US consulate in Nuke and
think about how the US embassy in Copenhagen can be
adjusted accordingly to this thread coming from the US administration.
Speaker 1: Well, he does make an interesting point. There is this
nineteen fifty one agreement that was signed when Harry Truman
was president, and it allows the United States to have
basically unlimited military operations in the country of Greenland, and
the president wants to make sure that Greenland is not
taken over by Russia or China. He says, it's strategically
very important. They've gotten minerals, but that's another part of
the story. But what's wrong with using the nineteen fifty
one agreement and just going ahead and putting more US
military there if that's what we want. Well, the President
explained his positions yesterday. Greenland said today, we prefer to
stay with Denmark.
Speaker 10: Do you see that as the first show that the
premiere of Greenland, Well, that's their problem, that's their problem.
Speaker 1: I disagree with him.
Speaker 7: I don't know who he is, don't know anything about him,
but that's going to be a big problem for him.
Speaker 1: And the president further comments today when the Oval Office
reporters were hitting him with questions, one was about Greenland, but.
Speaker 6: It was a very respectful meeting. Are those limits going
to be disfected?
Speaker 7: Well, we're going to see what happens with Greenland. We
need Greenland for national security, so we're going to see
what happens. They're going to brief me on the meeting
right after this conference. Take this sooner, I get you
out the fashion. I'm going to know exactly what happened.
But we have a very good relationship with Denmark, as
you know. We'll see. But you know, we're doing the
Golden Dome, We're doing a lot of things, and we
really need it. If we don't go in. Russia's going
to go in, and Channel is going to go in,
and there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it,
but we can do everything about it. Well, we're going
to see I mean, look, we're going to see what happens.
Speaker 1: But we need it.
Speaker 7: You know, I'm not the first one. This was talked
about by President Truman in forty years before President Truman,
they were talking about it. They've been talking about this
for one hundred years. This is not anything so new.
A lot of people don't realize that. But this was
a hot subject. Probably not as odd as it is now,
but it was a hot subject for a long time.
We needed for nancial security and that includes for Europe.
And I spoke with a hero, Mark, the head of NATO,
and he really wants to see something happen.
Speaker 6: Now, it sounds like you were saying that you would
potential acquire Greenland by force. That would be a NATO country.
Are you saying that?
Speaker 1: You know you're saying that, would you?
Speaker 7: I don't say. Now you're telling me that that's what
I'm going to do.
Speaker 1: You don't know what.
Speaker 7: I'm going to do.
Speaker 6: So where are the options?
Speaker 1: Your network doesn't know A Danish.
Speaker 6: Foreign Minister Senate, there's still fundamental differences. After being meeting
with Mumbio and with the Vice President. Are you even
willing to leave the NATO Alliance in order to get
what you want, which Greenland? What are the options really?
Speaker 7: I wouldn't be telling you what I'm willing to do,
Sir William. I'm going to give up options. But it's
very important. Greenland is very important for the national security,
including of Denmark. And the problem is it's not a
thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or
China wants to occupy Greenland. But there's everything we can do.
You found that out last week with Venezuela. There's everything
we can do about things such as that's not going
to happen. We're not, you know, I can't rely on
Denmark being able to find themselves off, you know. And
they were talking about they put an extra dog and
they were serious about this. They put an extra dog
sled there. Last month they entered a second dog sled.
That's not going to do the trick.
Speaker 6: General fought alongside the United States and the sad gellery
that I appreciate it.
Speaker 7: I have a very good relationship with Denmark and we'll
see how it all works out. I think something will
work out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it continues. I guess we have to wait
for the for the working groups to have meetings. But
I don't think the President wants to sit around and
wait on all of that credit card interest This is
I thought it was a little bit of a farce.
It was say something that makes people feel good. It's
very populous to tap interest rates on credit cards, but
it will do a lot of damage to people who
don't have good credit. I will back this up with
a couple of different bites, and one is Elizabeth Warren.
She was out giving a speech I'm not sure for
the last night or the night before, and you know,
she ripped Donald Trump up one side and down the other.
And then she President Trump called her after her speech
and they got talking about credit card interest rates. And well,
I'll let her explain her side of the conversation.
Speaker 11: Yes, I was surprised, in fact, I did not recognize
the phone number. And so the question then is he
raises the point about a cap on credit card interest rates,
something that had come up in this speech and that
I've been working on four years, and that is trying
to get interest rates down, and he said he wanted
to work on that, and I said, great, let's get
something done because my point was, and I made this
point in the speech, he had not lifted a finger
to try to get something through on credit card interest
rate abs. And then while I had them, I said,
you know there's something else you could do just right away.
We need to bring down the cost of housing, and
the way we do that is to increase housing supply
all across this country. We're three million units of housing short,
and we need urban housing, rural housing, housing for first
time home buyers, housing for renters, housing for seniors, housing
for people with disabilities. So I had worked with Chairman
Tim Scott, the Republican chair of the Banking Committee. We
put together a bill that had forty proposals in it,
every one of them aimed toward increasing supply, making it
easier to get approvals more on manufactured housing past the
Senate unanimously, unanimously, and yet goes over to the House
and the House Republicans won't move it at all, gets
tangled up over there, and I said, mister President, you
want to help bring down the cost of housing. Light
a fire under your House Republicans, get them to move
this bill. Let's get it signed into law. Un let's
get started now on a first step on lowering housing costs.
So been a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: So it is fascinating that Donald Trump picked up the
phone and called her and she was surprised, and so
she wants to work with him on getting a cap
on interest rates. But the second part of it, I
semi agree with her. I don't know what the facts
are about the fact that the House Republicans just sat
on a bill, but she's right. You want to bring
down the cost of housing, build more the supply. When
you have a shortage, prices go up. If you can
reduce that shortage, prices they may still go up, but
they won't go up anywhere near what the prices have
been going up over the last ten years. So she
had the right idea. I can't believe I'm saying that,
but she had the right idea about increased his supply
of housing. So how do you do that? Well, the
government gives incentives to builders to go out there and
do that. A lot of the hang up for building, though,
is not at the federal level. It's usually at the
local level, where you've got local planning commissions and permits
and fees for them to and the way that a
property is zoned for housing and all that. So any case,
I thought it was kind of interesting. But let's go
back to credit cards and Edward Ross Sorkin was interviewing
Elizabeth Warren this morning, and I thought his statistics really
were interesting.
Speaker 12: Listen, I want to go back to credit cards just
for a moment, because there is a study by a
professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Warden School suggesting that
a ten percent cap could make up to eighty percent
of customers of credit cards in America unprofitable at the
current lending rates and credit limits, which suggests that there
would be a meaningfully meaningful reduction in the amount of
credit potentially made available to customers if something like this
were to go into effect.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that?
Speaker 11: Well, first, obviously I want to take a look at
their data, but also just want to start with a
big picture here. Is there anybody defending thirty six percent
interest rate on credit cards or twenty eight percent interest
on credit cards?
Speaker 1: Well? No, But at the same time, she dodged the
whole question here with Zorkins said, this is from the
Wharton School. Eighty percent of credit cards are unprofitable. If
this banks are not allowed to charge a higher interest
rate than ten percent, that means eighty percent of the
credit cards would be pulled. If you are not in
a top tier credit rating, bye, buy your credit card.
The going pull them, They're going to end it, and
they'll and what they'll do is they'll make up the
fees by by other banking fees somewhere else that you'll pay.
But this is she she just blinks. She didn't even
respond to that. And are there people defending the thirty
six or twenty eight percent interest rates whatever? It is
not directly, but but if you don't like paying those
super high rates, Elizabeth Warren went on to talk about
why don't you get move your account over to a
credit union or some There's lots of other places that
have much lower, much lower interest rates. So let the
let the marketplace prevail. And if you're getting soaked with
super high interest rates, do a little work and find
out where you can get a lower interest rate and
move your account. It's not that hard. So then the
question about is this even going to happen? Madison Mills.
She's a reporter for ax Hills. She says she I've
been in Washington a long time, and she says, this
probably doesn't have a chance of getting through to be
passed into a law.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's sort of the flood the zone mentality. But
it's coming from Washington to Wall Street this time, and
investors that I talk to say that it's two things
that are making them sort of shrug off everything coming
from the President right now. One of them is that
a lot of these policies that we talk through, it's
not clear that they're official yet. For example, the President
talked about a cap on credit card interest rates. The
bank earnings that are happening this week, which is why
I'm at home this morning, because I've been on these
bank earnings calls all morning. The bank CEOs are telling
us that they are not even pricing out what that
could look like because they don't necessarily think that's going
to be a reality. So part of it is a
thinking that policy is maybe not going to come true.
And the other thing is the AI rally happening in
the stock market right now. None of the policies that
the President has talked through to address the affordability crisis
would negatively impact the big tech names, and those are
the companies that are defining the rally in the stock
market right now. So sources tell me that as long
as the president's policies don't impact those AI stocks, the
stock market's going to continue to grind higher.
Speaker 1: So is the president serious or is he just making
populous noises? We don't know, But Harry Entton checked on
credit card debt in America. Here's Harry.
Speaker 13: It is generating a ton, a ton of interest. Just
take a look here. Google searches for credit card rycap
up thirty two hundred percent versus a year ago, up
like a rocket in every single poll that I have
looked at. It's an extremely popular policy, and therefore I'm
not sure about the policy, but it is great at
this point. Great great, great politics. Why is there so
much interest in this? Why do I say it's great politics? Well,
take a look here how Americans feel credit card debt
is a stress in my life. Look at this. You
got the majority of Americans fifty five percent say credit
card debt is a stress in my life. More than that,
we're cost of living ranks in terms of the top
issues in terms of what's affecting you and your family.
It is number one, number one in Paul after Paul
after Paul. So when you see this, you see a
majority of Americans saying credit card debt is a stress
in my life. And you see that in Raking number
one cost of living in terms of the top issues.
That is why there's so much interest in something that
I think a lot of Americans think can address the
very issue that they feel is numero uno and that
is the cost of living.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I wonder if you could change those questions
to say, well, if we put a ten percent cap
on credit card interest rates, you there's an eighty percent
chance that you'll lose your credit card. And see what
people say. I don't think they would be all that thrilled.
They just think that, oh, sure, why not lower my
interest rates to ten percent? That I understand people's inn
that's great, but that's not the way it works.
Speaker 13: So this is another reason why I think this is great.
Politics is, you know, oftentimes you see the issues that
divide Americans Liberals and Democrats on one side, Conservatives Republicans
on the other. But take a look here, percentage with
credit card debt forty nine percent of Democrats, forty eight
percent of Independence, and fifty one percent of Republicans. It
is a bi partisan problem in this country. So all
of a sudden, Donald Trump is saying, Hey, let me
find an issue in which I can unite the different
factions in this country behind something that I am trying
to propose here. This is it, baby, This is an
issue that democrats that unites Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Because
the percentage with a credit card debt amongst Republicans, Independence,
and Democrats is pretty much gosh darrn equal.
Speaker 1: And that's something you basically, what are you pointing out?
It doesn't matter what your politics is. There's about half
the people in this country that are stressed out over
their credit card debt. How did they get there? I
mean we know how they got there. They spent more
than they make and they can't pay their credit card
bills in full every month. Well, since we're talking about money,
let's take a look at did Wall Street do anything
pos that of today? The answer is no, there wasn't
any big drop off for the Dow. We were down again,
down forty two to close at forty nine thousand.
Speaker 4: Nine.
Speaker 1: The S and P felt thirty seven nasdak down two
hundred and thirty eight. The price of gold was up
thirty four dollars. People are are switching to gold because
a lot of people in the global investment world are
selling the dollar and switching over to gold. They don't
like all of this Venezuela, Syria, Iran, you name it. No,
the investors don't like it feels very unstable to them,
a lot of chaos. So gold went up another thirty
four dollars today. I believe this is a new record,
four thousand, six hundred and thirty three dollars for one
ounce of gold, and oil basic unchanged at sixty one
dollars for a barrel of oil. That's it for today.
Thank you for coming by. We'll be back again tomorrow.
I hope to see you then