Speaker 1: And hello, how are you welcome? Welcome to the Big
Podcast on this Friday. Today's the fifth day of June,
year of our lower twenty twenty six. My name is
Tom Sullivan, and so actually pretty busy Friday. They've been
that way lately. We've got the others. They're still yeah,
they're still counting out in California. It's the election was
on Tuesday. But hey, no rush there. We've got the
latest on the jobs report for the month of May
came out this morning. Update on Iran. But I want
to start. Oh, and Graham Plattner getting a lot of
attention on the news wheel today because Maine is having
their primary on Tuesday. So as you get down toward
election day, all of a sudden, all the opposition research
comes out, and there's a lot of it. But I
want to start with Bill Poulty. The ruckus about Bill
Poulty is still very pronounced because of the fact that
he was picked by the President to be the office
the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, and Wall
Street Journal interviewed the President today and asked him, why
did you pick this guy? He doesn't have any background
at all in intelligence none. He came from from the
housing industry, and he seems to cause problem wherever he goes.
But the President said that he hired Bill Poulty and
he wants him to be there temporarily, whatever that means.
But he hired him to be for the reason of
be firing a large number of employees as part of
a shakeup of the US Intelligence Committee, and that he
also wants him to basically declassify and release a lot
of classified documents. So this gets interesting because I'm all
for shrinking government. I think there's a lot of bloat,
and I would imagine that in the eighteen intelligence agencies
that Bill Poulty will be overseen, there's probably a lot
of bloat. So if he is hired, asked that who
was it yesterday? He called him a hitman. It's kind
of what he is. He's a hatchet guy, hatchet man,
and he's going to be going in there and cutting
and trimming down our national intelligence units to be much
much smaller. So the President told Wall Street Journal he says,
I'd like to see it smaller. I think there are
a lot of people in there that should not be there,
and that he wants him to start the process. Remember,
the President from the day he was elected Trump one
point zero. He has not liked the intelligence units, he
has not liked the FBI, he hasn't liked the CIA.
He doesn't like any of those because of the fact
that they were involved in Russia, Russia, Russia, and he
has never forgotten it. And he also one thing he
has never forgotten, and he has stayed staunchly in the
story of the twenty twenty election, that it was rigged,
it was stolen. And immediately a lot of people him
out and say, uh, there's no there's no evidence of that. Well,
I think what this is is he's going to have
Bill Poulty try and go in and release a lot
of the national intelligence that was done about Trump and
the accusations of him being involved with Russia, and he's
going to unveil whatever it was that the CIA or
the FBI, the files, what they said, what they found.
I know we had the Mueller investigation, but this is
going to be I think what President Trump wants him
to do. So stand by, I mean buckle buckle up
a little bit, because I think this is going to
be kind of wild. So the guy who did the
interview for the Wall Street Journal is Brian Schwartz, and
this is his recount of how the interview went today.
Speaker 2: I don't think he's really thinking too deeply into the stake,
because I think he's looking at the person that he's
selected for this job. And Bill Poulty now the acting
head of this Office of National Intelligence, and thinking what
he did at the Federal Housing Agency where he cut
over one hundred employees, and he believes that he can
take that same model and bring it right into that
same pivotal office. And of course it's the Director of
National Intelligence. He's overseeing what eighteen or so agencies and
different divisions that are for our intelligence gatherings. And the
President made very clear to me that the message she
gave to Bill Poulti was he believed it was time
to winnow down that that agency and it was time
to really start looking at further cuts to personnel. And
it's going to be really interesting to see how far
Poulty is willing to go. But based on his track
record that we at the Wall Street Journal have been
covering extensively for almost two years, this is kind of
his poltice moo. This is what he does in part
over at the Federal Housing agency itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why he's not like because he's a hatchemn.
He goes in and fires a bunch of people. You
think you think Elon Musk fired a lot of people
on when he had Doge. Well, this is kind of
a more specific example of it. But again it is
there's some animosity between the president and our national intelligence services.
So Paulty is the guy, and he wants him to
go in there, not because of his intelligence, he has
no intelligence background. He wants them to go in there
and basically fire a lot of people in our national
intelligence units.
Speaker 2: Similar things that we've been wondering at the Journal ourselves.
Why is he going with Poulty in this acting role. Well,
it turns out at least it seems like that was
by in design. It was basically, you know, to put
him in there so we can be unshackled. And so
Congress will of course have oversight in a way over this,
but there's not going to be some confirmation bow over
his actions or anything the President says that he expects
him to do. And of course for the White House
or the President for Paulty, that's a big bonus if
they're going to go after people within the intelligence apparatus
the United States, and I think you're going to see
a lot more outcry from those same Republicans on the Hill.
But I'll also point out, right before I came on here,
Tom Cotton put out a social media post making it
very clear, of course, you know how important he is
in the intelligence world Trump's world, that he supports pretty
much everything the President told us that he expects Bill
Poulty to do. So it'll be fascina and see where
everybody lands on this on the Hill.
Speaker 1: Well, Tom Cotton, obviously, if he's supporting it, he must
be supporting the fact that the intelligence units are bloated,
that they just have a lot of people. So well,
back to Brian Schwartz, I.
Speaker 2: Think it's it's kind of a little bit of both.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: He did tell me that he believes that there are
people there who should not be there, and then he
started talked about, you know, paste past administrations and the
people in that office from those administrations working national intelligence,
that they should not be there as well. But I
do think there's this kind of there's a bit of
him that is thinking about that kind of so called
deep state that's still in his mind. Something he really
does believe in looking back into his past political career
and how that's so called you know, peace of the
intelligence world may have impacted him in sof way, and
I think that's still in his mind greatly, and that's
partially maybe why he's bringing Pulty to handle this for now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Donald Trump, this isn't just some election thing
that he said. He really truly wants retribution. He wants
to go in and sort out all the people who
have ever ever crossed his path the wrong way. And
also he has not shaken his belief in the rigged
twenty twenty election. According to him.
Speaker 2: I went through a whole litany of different topics. One
of them, of course, is the election I talked about.
I asked him about like anything around COVID nineteen. Remember
this was something else that got brought up after he
was president, or questions around that, conspiratorial things around that,
and that led to him saying what you just said,
I want him to declassify everything. And that's something else
to really watch here. I mean, Tolci Gabbert did that
in a way, right, She did things around I believe
the twenty sixteen election and the Muller Probe or things
around that nature, maybe the larger investigations in the present
that time. And now it appears the President wants Poulty
to go much further than that.
Speaker 1: So, reading from some of the article that Brian Schwartz
wrote for the Journal today, he quotes the President of saying, frankly,
it might be good for him to shake it up
before people come, because if A Pulty reduced the size
in conjunction with me and in conjunction with possibly the
person coming in, he can do a lot of the
hard work and we wouldn't have to saddle somebody that
goes in. So the President is really looking at Pulty
as a hit man. Go in, take out a lot
of people, disclose a lot of classified documents, and then
we'll get somebody else to come in and become the
head of the national intelligence Last well, a couple days ago,
the Senate Majority Leader John Thune said, we don't need
a weaponized DNI. But this is complicating a push to
reauthorize the powerful surveillance program section seven h two of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So the Senate is supposed
to move forward on reauthorizing this program, but it failed
because a lot of the senators are concerned about the
role that Poultie will have. So it's shaking up an
awful lot in Washington. But the President gets to pick
whoever he wants, and this guy is not subject to
Senate confirmation because of the fact he's only going to
be an acting Director of National Intelligence. But again, on
releasing classified documents, just buckle up, That's all I can say.
Now on to another controversial character, and that's this Graham Plattner,
who is an oyster fisherman in Maine. And you know,
if the opposition research has dirt on you, they're going
to release it pretty close to election day. Well, the primary,
like I said, is Tuesday in Maine, and so all
the dirt on Graham platter Ner is coming out. There's
a bunch of women that have come forward, and New
York Times did an extensive article about the women and
about half of there's about a dozen of about half
of them said no big deal. The other half said
that this guy scared them and was said sexually aggressive things.
And in any case, you throw sex into it, and
you throw a bunch of women coming forward, and you've
got opposition research and they're going to paint this guy
to be the worst guy ever. What's actually it's not humorous.
But I find it ironic that the Republicans are going,
how could you, Democrats? How could you possibly nominate this guy?
How could you possibly you? Democrats? In May? How could
you vote for this guy? In fact, this goes back
to when Kavanaugh was up for being nominated to be
a Supreme Court justice. Let me just play a clip
of Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand and anyway, a bunch of
Democrats talking about how you must respect women's complaints.
Speaker 4: For too long, women have made serious allegations of abuse
and have been ignored or dragged through the mud.
Speaker 1: The question is do we value women? And that's the
fundamental question.
Speaker 2: Do we believe women?
Speaker 1: I believe her. I believe doctor Ford. I still believe her.
She has the courage to come forward.
Speaker 5: She has nothing the gang.
Speaker 6: I just want to say to the men of this
country to shut up and step up, do the right
thing for a change.
Speaker 1: So they were outraged about the women that came forward,
pointing at Kavanaugh. So what was her name, doctor Ford?
So in any case, now the shoe is on the
other foot and they're basically protecting Platner and Roe Conna
is going to be I think tonight maybe. If not tonight,
it's tomorrow going to be in Maine basically campaigning with Platner.
But the other part that makes this, like I said,
somewhat ironic is Republicans are just outraged about this guy
who's a Democrat, and yet at the same time, the
Democrats just two weeks ago were outraged about Ken Paxton
being the He's the Attorney General of Texas that has
won over John Cornyn to be the Republican nominee for
the US Senate from Texas, and he's got a checkered
path and involving women, and so take your pick, and
it just makes you wonder, this is the best we
can find. I mean, I'm I'm not looking to look
up on some pedestal for senators, but uh gosh, they
should be somewhat decent people. So listen to this guy.
His name is Alex Sites, and he has a newspaper
in Maine called The Mid Coast Villager. So he tells
a story about the fact that he's got a cafe
below his newspaper office, and he goes down there to
get a feel of the pulse of the community. Listen
to what he says about the women, and they're talking
about whether they're going to vote for Platin or not.
Speaker 5: What I'm hearing is that partisanship is a very powerful
force in American politics, no surprise, but it's amazing to
see it happening here. My newspaper, the Mid Coast Villager
and Camden, Maine. We have a cafe that's right beneath
our newsroom where I'm talking to you from right now,
and every Friday morning we have open office hours where
the public can come and talk to editors, pitch stories,
complain about a headline. And this morning I was down
there and of course this came up. We had four women,
so I wanted their take, all four of them left leaning.
They read the c Bridge. They don't think it's fake,
They believe it. They found his behavior gross, as one
put it, ikey is another put it, And they really
didn't like what he's doing to his wife, putting her
through this as they perceived it, And they didn't like
the way that he is kind of casting aspersions on
the media or as they felt, not really taking ownership.
That said, despite all that, one of them was about
to go leave and vote early for Grant Platner in
Tuesday's primary, and all four of them said that they
were sticking with him. They want to beat Susan Collins.
They think the stakes are so high for control of
the Senate for Supreme Court justices, and they feel like
Platner is their only and best choice to do that.
There is a provision in Maine state law where the
nominee could be replaced, but he would have to drop
out by July thirteenth, and there's so far no indication
that that's going to happen. But they're uncomfortable with this.
They are worried that there's another shoe that's going to drop.
And Susan Collins wins this state by winning ticket splitters.
In twenty twenty, she won about fifty seven thousand votes
from people who voted for Joe Biden at the top
of the ticket and then moved down the ballot and
voted for her. So she doesn't need that many Democrats
to break from Graham Platner in order to still win
in November.
Speaker 1: Yeah, isn't that great. So the guy interviews these four
women and they're all outraged about Graham Plattner, how terrible
he is, how gross he is. Andy had all four
of them said yeah, but I'm voting for him, so see.
But then then Susan Collins people split the ticket. They
voted for Biden but voted for her, so they did
a Democrat Republican vote in twenty twenty four. It's well,
Carl Roev always puts some analysis on this, and he
speaks from the Republican side. So let's see what Carl says.
Speaker 6: Yeah, my personal favorite is Sheldon white white House of
Rhode Island. Wonderfully appealing, he says of Platner. Is it
appealing the Nazi tattoo or the race postings white old blacks?
Speaker 1: Ever?
Speaker 6: Tip is it the question of sexual misconduct that makes
him appealing? Is that the inflammatory Reddit postings? Is it
him taking a noted American hero Chris Kyle and saying
outrageous things about what he supposedly did in Iraq? I mean,
this guy is a disaster and Democrats are stuck with him.
White House gave him ten thousand dollars from his own
campaign committee and gave him that wonderful go get him
wonderfully appealing label. But Democrats are stuck the primaries next week.
Janet Mills, the governor who got into the race early
on and then Withdrew, is still on the ballot. But
Maine's going to nominate in my opinion, Platner, and it's
going to be a rough time for them in the
fall election.
Speaker 1: I'm with Carl. He's a bad dude, but he's probably
going to be the nominee. He probably he has a
very good chance of beating to and call So. But
then again, I think Ken Paxton is a moral mess,
but I think he's going to win as well. He'll
be the Senator from Texas. So we'll get these people
in the US Senate and let's we'll find out whether
or not we find it entertaining or we are disgusted,
whatever it might be. All Right, speaking of elections, So California,
there's still counting. They are still counting. Here's Steve Hilton
on the latest.
Speaker 7: It just shows you that the competence level of government
in California has just completely collapsed in sixteen years of
Democrat one party rule. And it's just not another example
of why we so desperately need change. I'm actually putting
forward an offer to you know with some specifics that
we that could be implemented by Gavin Newsom now to
speed up this election, to accelerate the outcome around the world.
They're laughing at California, saying, these guys that think that
the head of the center of the technology revolution, AI,
silicon value, all of these things, they're changing the world,
but they can't run an election.
Speaker 1: Oh, they can't run a state either. That's how befuddled
they are about everything. I mean, if you were if
you're going to work for a company and there's a
you're one of fifty people and you all have projects
you're supposed to be doing, or you're in call, you're
in school and fifty kids in the class and you're
supposed to take a test. Everybody's done, and you're still
there days after days, weeks after weeks, and they think
everything that's fine, and they got to know that they're
doing something terribly wrong, but they just don't understand what
a messed up state. So Shannon Breem is talking about California,
and listen, she brings up the point that I brought
up yesterday. The longer this sits out there, and the
just cases and cases and truckloads and truckloads of mail
in ballots, and the longer it goes and they find
another truckload of ballots somewhere that, oh, we forgot about
that one. It's going to lead to all kinds of
questions and doubts about the validity, and it will certainly
spurn all kinds of conspiracy stories or conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it could be, and that's why it potentially sparks
real trouble for people who say, listen, you open the
door to conspiracy theories and conjecture about what's actually going on.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has a very interesting piece saying, listen,
there could be nothing sinister here. But they call it
indefensible that a state like California has not figured this out.
When state it's like Florida, you know, election night, exactly
what's happening. So maybe take some pointers. You know, blue states,
red states, they're all they're laboratories of democracy. But you know,
maybe there's a different way to do this now. Governor
k Newsom did sign a bill last year that shortens
and says counties have to have all their ballots counted
in thirteen days. It used to be thirty days. But
there are extensions too, so I don't know that that
solves the problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in business, it's called best practices. You find other
companies that are in your industry, and the one who
does it the best, you try to follow whatever best
practices they use and you adopt them. We think California
could find one other state in the nation that does
it faster than them, that'd be forty nine of the
fifty and just adopt some of their practices. But it's
still they are. We're laughing at California. But it will
bring up all kinds of conspiracy theories. You can count
on it, all, Right, the war? What war? Remember the war? Oh? Yeah,
it's going to be solved anytime soon. We're right close
to a deal.
Speaker 8: As far as the Red's concerned.
Speaker 1: You're going to find out what the deal is.
Speaker 8: But the main part of the deal is that can't
have a nuclear weapon. The strait will open immediately. You
know it's going to open immediately, and we've lost argually
swept for mine.
Speaker 1: So all they got to do is a degree to
those two things. But somehow it's not happening. General Team,
I think he listen to listen to this. I think
he's throwing into towel, going there's no deal is going
to happen. I agree with him.
Speaker 9: The truth is they suggested we go into this diplomatic
mode because when they shut down the straighttion moves, they said,
we can work out a deal and we'll open it
up in two weeks. Well, here we are eight weeks later.
They've never opened it up, and they keep kicking out
the idea that we can make a deal, and I
think we have to accept the reality that's just not
going to happen. They have one motive in mind here.
Stretch out negotiations as much as possible, get as close
to the political situation in terms of midterm elections, and
it will be less likelihood that President Trump would have
a pull the trigger and go back to the military operation.
Speaker 1: I have to admit, I think the Iranians are pretty smart.
They don't believe Trump will go back to military action.
I don't either. Well, do we stay in stalemate position forever?
Michael Allen weighs in.
Speaker 10: I mean, I don't personally doubt the will and strength
of the president. I think that he would resume the
use of force under certain conditions. I'm just more worried
about the messaging to them. You mentioned that he's messaging
the oil markets. I think he is. But when we
message the regime leadership, I think what they're hearing is
in definite ceasefire, no more use of force on the table.
So I do think we need to be more clear
about the or else what exactly is going to happen
to Aron if they don't cooperate, how do we get
them out of the status quo? I think the White
House knows this, and we're seeing glimpses of it going forward,
but we definitely need to articulate very clearly what the
US interests are and how we're going to achieve them.
Speaker 1: I agree, but it can't be we're going to blow
up the Smith rings.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: I think we should roll General Kin, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, out and lay out the military plan,
not specific so that they can know what we're going
to do, but lay out the fact that our military
has the ability to do X, Y and Z and
that we're going to do it, and give them a
drop dead date, literally a drop dead date. So Kareem
Sajapor from the Carnegie Institute knows iron like the back
of his hand.
Speaker 11: I do think that President Trump over the last several
months is always consistently, you know, he's been overly optimistic
about the likelihood of a resolution. Iran is in less
of a hurry to resolve this issue. They're sticking to
their demands, and so I do think that doesn't seem
like the two sides are anywhere near resolution to a
the phase one of this deal. Well, since the nineteen
seventy nine revolution and shortly thereafter the creation of Lebanese
has Beulah, Iran has always prioritized Lebanon, not uh to
advance the interests of Lebanese citizens, but to use Lebanese
soil to attack Israel. And so I think you saw
on that interview which President al Own of Lebanon dial
with with Christian the enormous frustration of and thinks he
speaks for many Lebanese that you know, Lebanon is a
country which is teetered on economic bankruptcy and it will
never be able to thrive so long as it's kind
of a uh, you know, view viewed and considered to be,
you know, part of the proxy war between Iran and Israel.
And so that is a leverage that Iran has and
that it's said that it wants Lebanon to be part
of any ceasefire agreement. And frank here is a source
of tension between America and Israel because President Trump is
keen to do this deal with Iran and Israeli saying this,
and this is a national security concern. We can't simply
sit on our hands while militia on our northern border
continues to attack us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Hesba law the court. According to Iran, they're going, okay, okay, okay,
we'll do a deal with the US, but first you've
got to include hebe Law in as part. They're part
of us. They never used to admit that they were
part of them, but now they do. And so they're saying, yeah,
we want we want you to make Israel stop attacking
his Belaw And Israel says, wait a minute, they're attacking us.
We've got to defend ourselves. Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State,
this is his thought.
Speaker 12: Yes, well, actualy, it can't. And by the way, it's clarifying.
The Iranians forever said Hesbela was independent, We don't have
anything to do with them. They have now acknowledged that
what we've all known. They're the primary underwriter supporter has
Bela is Iran. It is the regime tames occupation of Lebanon.
And so I read the agreement between the United States
and Lebanon and Israel yesterday, But the party that really
matters there has a non nation state actor, has refused
to do the simple thing, which is to conduct a
ceasefire and stop the fighting there. And so Israel's going
to do the necessary. Their citizens still can't move back
into the northern part of their country. You know, we
wouldn't accept it if our citizens had to move out
of their homes. Israel's going to do what's necessary. And
you've seen Prime Minister Nate in Yahoo acknowledge that this
will continue. And so if the Iranians continue to hold
to this idea that somehow a ceasefire there is part
of this, I see no way there'll be an arrangement
between the United States and Iran that solves the crisis
that's in the Strait today.
Speaker 1: Well, let's review. Let's see, we had General Keen who
says there's no way that an agreement is going to
be reached. We had Michael Allen, who was being kind
but saying that the president's overly optimistic about reaching an agreement.
In other words, it's not going to happen. And you
got Kareem Sadupors saying this exact thing. Now, POMPEII was going, no,
we're not going to reach an agreement with these guys,
which leaves what either we get into a stalemate or
we use military and the president has to decide which
one of those he wants to do. All right, the economy,
We have a bunch of things about the economy today. Oh,
before we get to that. So last night was vote
rama in the US Senate. This talk about not knowing
how to run a business. The Senate debated three bills
over eight They were in session for eighteen hours. They
went until four am this morning, and they had a
bill that the Democrats wanted to stop the president's weaponization
the slush fund, whatever you want to call it. And
so they needed a couple of Republicans to join them,
and a couple did. But when all was said and done,
Democrats failed at stopping the weaponization bill. So the president
will still have the weapons. Say I know that. Todd
Blant said that it was over. We're done, We're not
going to use it, but the President then the next
day said, yes, it's still alive. I'm very interested in
that weaponization bill. It ties in with his wanting to
go into with Bill Polti into the national intelligence records.
He is obsessed with. He's going to get to the
bottom of the twenty twenty election one way or the other,
and anybody that did anything to support the Democrats in
their efforts in those years, He's going to use the
weaponization bill against them and to give money to all
of those that stormed the Capitol on jan six. So
that failed. If the Democrats failed to get that stopped,
then they went on the seventy billion dollar immigration bill.
This is the one that funds ICE and the border
patrol through the end of President Trump's term. Seventy billion
dollar immigration bill and it passed. Actually, Hakeem Jeffries was
all excited about the fact that they were going to
stop the weaponization bill and they failed, and on the
immigration bill he wanted to not fund the seventy billion dollars.
Speaker 4: Here's Hakeeen, how's democratsic going to strongly oppose this effort
to spend seventy billion dollars in taxpayer funds on continuing
to provide support for an ICE agency that the American
people know is out of control. At the end of
the day, right taxpayer dollars should be used to make
life more affordable for the American people, particularly in an
environment where the cost of living is far too high.
Speaker 1: So, in other words, as the leader of the Democrats
in the House, he's saying, defund, defund ICE, defund the
border patrol. He doesn't want he doesn't want to fund them.
He wants to get rid of ICE completely. I don't
know what you do about the illegals in our country,
but remember the Democrats were four opening up the borders
to let the Democrats in or let the illegals in,
and now that they're here, he doesn't want ICE rounding
them up and throwing them out. So that was part
of the vote rama. The one thing that did pass
that the Democrats wanted was aid for Ukraine, and the
vote was two twenty six to one five. It included
support from eighteen Republicans that cross the aisle over to
vote with the Democrats on eight billion in loans to
Ukraine and NATO and UH more than a billion other
funds for Ukraine, Baltic security, and radio free Europe. So
some billions of dollars going to aid Ukraine. Democrats sponsored it,
eighteen Republicans went for it. So the Republicans won stopping
the weapon for continuing the weaponization bill, and for funding ICE.
But the ICE bill needs to go to the Senate
and it's going to have an uphill battle there too.
But the Democrats won on Ukraine aid. All right, so
we got the vote rama thing done, Wall Street. Let's
see what happened. Oh, before we get to that, the economy.
So this morning, first Friday of the month, we got
our jobs report and it was expected to be up
eighty five thousand jobs, not much, but it came in
payrolls in May up one hundred and seventy two thousand,
more than double what had been estimated. The unemployment rate
remained unchanged at four point three percent. Has it weighs
in on this very political, more political than I've ever heard, Kevin,
But listen.
Speaker 13: Yeah, it's absolutely a blowout number. And the thing that's
most astonishing about it is is we look at the
forecast of everybody that surveyed at Bloomberg, and not a
single person got this number right, that happens quite a bit.
But the error from the top person to this number
was about fifty thousand jobs.
Speaker 1: So Kevin is kind of busting his buttons, all proud
about that, and I'm thinking, wait a minute, not one
economist got that right, and that the expected number of
jobs eighty five thousand, he says, a blowout number, one
hundred and seventy two thousand. No, it's been for number
of years, two hundred thousand ish, but they were expecting
it to be much slower eighty five thousand. It was
one seventy two. But why was not one economist right?
Not one? Doesn't that make Kevin pause? And I wonder
about the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Are their numbers legit?
Are they going to do a big adjustment down the road. Meantime,
the bond market did not like this at all. Bond
markets took a dive, interest rates went higher. They're worried
about inflation. If that's true that wages and employment are up,
then stand by for more inflation. And speaking of wages,
in this report, they pointed out that wages went up
three point four percent last month, but inflation is going
up four point three So once again wages not keeping
up with inflation. But I like Kevin hasseid a lot,
but this he was all proud of the fact that
not one of them got it right. And I thinking, well,
maybe the one that got it wrong was the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. All right, So Wall Street, well they
didn't like it. But again, let's review today's Friday. So
Wednesday we had a huge drop, biggest dropping a long
time on Wall Street. Yesterday we had a big rebound
up almost nine hundred points, and then today back down again.
So it's up, down, updown, down almost seven hundred, down
six hundred and ninety five on the Dow to fifty
thousand and eight sixty six SMP Dow oh better than
two and a half percent drop down two hundred points.
Nasdaq down one thousand, one hundred and twenty one points.
That was a four percent drop. Huge. The price of
gold one hundred and fifty dollars dropped down to four
thousand and three point fifty four. And oil, well, we'll
take it. It was down two dollars and eighty four
cents down the ninety dollars and some change for a
barrel of oil. So I know Kevin was all excited,
but Wall Street wasn't excited about that job report. That's
it for today, Thank you for coming by, have a
wonderful weekend. We'll be back on Monday and I hope
to see you then.
Speaker 11: MHM.