Speaker 1: And here we go.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Big Podcast Friday. Today is the nineteenth
day of September, year of our over two thousand and
twenty five. All right, band, okay, okay, okay. So we
got a lot we've got especially for a Friday. But
I mean, the Jimmy Kimmel thing is still going big.
We'll dig into all of that. We've got a little
bit of the info for you. The Charlie Kirk Memorial
Service will be in Glendale, Arizona, on Sunday.
Speaker 1: But we've got.
Speaker 2: Some thoughts about all of that. We've got the government
trying to stay in business. The House passed a continuing resolution.
In other words, that's a fancy word for kick the
can down the road. They passed two seventeen to two
twelve in the House of Representatives, and the Senate immediately
rejected it. So no, no, no, no, they've gotten until
the end of the month. So you wait, they'll wait
until the twenty ninth and come up with some sort
of solution there. And just some hilarious stuff coming out
of Kamala Harris. Yes, she's got her new book out.
I think it's coming out this next week. And so
they're doing all kinds of leaks on what it says
about this and what it says about that, and there's
it's it's actually I find it very entertaining. But let's
let's start with Let's start with Jimmy Kimmel the meeting.
First of all, it's fascinating to see the ratings. I
finally got the ratings for late night television and it's exactly.
I don't think anybody's going to be shocked by this.
Jimmy Kimmel's program, Late Night with Stephen Colbert, and The
Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, all of them have been
dropping since two thousand. Well, Jimmy Kimmel has been dropping
since two thousand and what this is I'm looking at
a chart. Fourteen numbers have been coming down for eleven years.
They're down the lowest they've ever been. They get on
a ratings this is from Nielsen, on a rating scale
to get point one six, folks and broadcasting, No no
show can serve with the ratings of point one six.
So let's go over to the Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
He did better than Jimmy Kimbell and CBS has basically
ushered him out. The door in a weird way. His
numbers have been coming down since two thousand and sixteen,
and that is because Late Night previous to that was
hosted by David Letterman. But since Colbert took over, the
numbers have gone just sliding a nice straight No it's gradual,
but they've been coming down. He's had a point one
point eight miserable, terrible ratings, and then you go to
the Tonight Show and the numbers peaked. They had nice,
big boost back in twenty fourteen. That was the last
time Jay Leno hosted the Tonight Show. But since Jimmy
Fallon has taken over, the numbers have come down and
down and down, and they're now down to a point
one three, by far the worst of all of the
late night shows, no question about it. And you just
got to look at this and go, all right, I know,
I know, I know. We talked yesterday about the fact
that Jimmy Kimmel keeps poking the bear and the bear
bit back, but it is I would be so embarrassed.
I mean, if I saw those ratings for something that
I did, I would I would back into the boss's
office and hand in my resignation. Those are embarrassing bad.
But the whole thing about this which is making a
big ruckus out of it is the guy who is
the head of the Federal Communication Commission, the FCC. They're
the ones that license broadcasters. And well, I mean there's
Brendan Carr, even Britt Hume. Even Britt Hume put out
a tweet saying the First Amendment does not protect performers
like Jimmy Kimmel from being canceled by their private sector employers.
But I would have liked the outcome a lot better
if the chairman of the FCC had not involved himself
in it. That's where the question about the big boot
of government stepping on the private sector. I mean, if
ABC wanted to keep paying Jimmy Kimmel lots of money
to do a show with lowsy, lowsy, lousy ratings, that's
between that's their business, not the FCC. So this guy,
Brendan Carr, is getting a lot of pushback, even Ted Cruz.
You can't get more conservative than Ted Cruz, can you.
And yet he is a lawlawyer, and he is absolutely
going after Brendon Carr, saying that what he did by
threatening to poll broadcast licenses. I'm quoting Ted Cruz as
unbelievably dangerous and compared to some of the rhetoric to
mafioso tactics. So yeah, he's obviously I think he says I, well,
I'll quote him. He says, I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said.
I am thrilled that he was fired. But let me
tell you, if the government gets in the business of
saying we don't like what you the media have said,
we're going to ban you from the airwaves if you
don't say what we like, this will end up bad
for conservatives. This is my point I was making yesterday.
I'll make it again. I've made it for years. Be
careful what you wish for. Don't play chess. Played chess.
Someday there will be a Democrat in the White House.
Don't know when. Doesn't look promising, but they they'll they'll
have a Democrat in there someday. And then, how would
you like it if they did this to some of
the Fox personalities. I mean, if they go after Greg Guttfeld,
he's the late night comedian guy now, and that's that's
what's going to happen here. So what I don't like
is I first of all, I'm not a fan of
big government.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And so when somebody like Brendan Carr starts shoving their
government weight around, it bothers me, bothers brit Hume, it
bothers a lot of people. I mean, if you take
a look, there have been people that had been fired.
I think ABC was the fire the one that fired Roseanne.
She put she put out a tweet that was directed
at Valerie Jarrett, remember her, the right hand woman for
Barack Obama. And Roseanne put out some tweet and everybody
was aghast. The government did not step in and tell
ABC to fire Roseanne. ABC did it on their own.
Nick Cannon also, he was on that America's Got Talent show.
Who does that? I think it's ABC. They fired Nick
Cannon because he had on a podcast which is not
licensed by anybody. He had said something anti semitic on
a podcast, and they said, we don't care. That is
not part of what your work is on America's Got Talent.
It makes us look bad. Now you look bad, so
we're firing you. And he later apologize and did all
of that. So, I mean, I could go through a
long list of these kinds of examples. But I do
not like the look of this. But when I look
at it from a business standpoint and I see the
pathetic ratings that Jimmy Kimmel has had, I mean, it's
just it's shocking to see that they were even keeping
their job, all of the late don stuff. So will
Jimmy fall and be next? I think so. I think
that whole era is a thing of the past because
it hasn't been funny, that none of them have been
funny for the longest time, and they've been very political,
and that they used to have good ratings until they
decided to become political. So Johnny Carson and Jay Lenno
and all that crowd, Nope, it's not working. So Harry
anton Over at CNN, the statistician there as this looked
at people's attitude toward the US media.
Speaker 4: There are rare points in which I see a piece
of data and it just sort of jumps off the
screen at me, and this is one of them, because
I really just think it tells the entire story. And
this is among Republicans. The media is biased and should
be punished. Look at this. Seventy one percent of Republicans
agree with the idea that the media is biased and
should be punished. They absolutely Republicans are absolutely loving what
is happening right now to Jimmy Kimmel. Absolutely love the
words that are coming out of Brendan Carr's mouth. The
bottom line is that they believe that the media is
biased and should be punished. So taking Jimmy Kimmel off
the air, if there's government influence there, they're absolutely enjoying.
It's one thing that the idea is okay, Jimmy Kimmel's
being punished by his own company, right, being punished by ABC,
being punished by Disney. But the idea that the government
is influencing it, I don't think that Republicans are going
to have much of a problem with it, because take
a look here. Republicans already think that the US media
and US news organizations are in fact influenced by government interests.
Look at this again amongst Republicans, look at the sixty
four percent. This is again, even before the Kimmel news broke,
sixty four percent of Republicans believe that the US media
is influenced by government interests. A great deal. We're talking
two thirds of Republicans. And then you get another twenty
six percent who say are somewhat influenced by government interests.
That totals up to nearly ninety percent, when, of course
you're not just rounding as if you were you ninety percent,
but we're talking about eighty nine percent of the public
of Republicans excuse me, who say that the US media
is influenced by government interests. So no Republicans A they
like the idea that Jimmy Kimmel's being being punished, and
B they're not at all going to be against the
idea that the government might be influencing it, because they
already think two thirds already think that the government is
influencing US media organizations a great deal in this country,
chance that Jimmy Kimmel Live returns by the end of
twenty twenty five, it's just a little bit more than
fifty percent, fifty six percent of the last run that
I was able to get. By the end of this month,
it's twenty percent, about a one in five. So at
this point, the prediction markets basically have it as a
coin flip that Kimmel returns by the end of the year,
which I think kind of feels right.
Speaker 2: Well, that was interesting. There's a lot to unpack there.
First of all, I don't think Kimmel's going to be
back by the end of the year. My gosh, that's
just a couple of months away. And the reason why
I refer back to again, he got lousy ratings. So
if he's going to come back and have a show somewhere,
that's fine, and I work him well, but man alive
that format of late night talk shows, it's just not
working way, especially the way they did it. And Jimmy
has become like I told you he's been back. When
he was on The Man Show, I thought he was
a funny guy. He's a gifted comedian, but he has
buried that gift by just being a political pundit. And
it's too bad. The other part that Harry was talking
about is all these Republicans are so jazzed about the
fact that the government is getting involved and they're going
to punish Jimmy. He's being punished. He's not being punished
directly by the government. ABC's the one who's punishing him.
But what bothers me about this is what happened to
the Republican Party, the party of smaller government and smaller taxes,
less government the better. What are you thinking about that
you want more government involvement. Can you remember when the government,
Biden's administration was found with their fingers in especially Twitter,
but who knows how many other social media sites telling
them what they could and could not print, what they
could post, and what they could not post. The government
got involved in social media and social media. I'm sure
they got involved with the online media, with broadcast media,
but remember what they did. They censored conservative voices and
now they are theoretically sounds like from Brendan Carr that
he is wanting to censor anybody who disagrees with his
views on the right. That's just as wrong. It's just
as wrong. That's why Ted Cruz is absolutely right. This
is you just don't want the government getting involved in
the media in any way, shape or form. So to
be enthused about this, I think is just wrong. So
today in Congress they had a vote on one of
those proclamations that Congress does on an irregular basis that
was basically in honor of Charlie Kirk and saying, you know,
he was a good guy and he provided civil discourse,
and he just basically a proclamation of the man who
just was assassinated that he was. You know, we honor him,
that's all it is. Well, the vote anyway, you think
that it would easily pass, but no, where did it
go here the House emotion to honor Charlie Kirk. Fifty
eight Democrats said no, no, I'm sorry, And then AOC
came out and spoke on the floor of the House
of Representatives, absolutely lambasting Charlie Kirk. Okay, I know you
don't agree with him, that's fine, But isn't it just
a little early. Do you have any decorum about you?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: The no group was basically led by this guy, Matchwell Frost.
He's a Democrat from Florida, and this is what he
had to say about everything, Charlie Kirk and also a
President Trump. He doesn't like anybody, the President and his
lap dogs.
Speaker 3: Here in the United States Congress, the Vice President, the
FCC chair, the Attorney General, Secretary of State, and congressional
Republicans are implementing a dangerous agenda to punish their opposition.
Speaker 2: Fascism is not on the way it is here, So
not all Democrats are as far far far left as
Maxwell Frost, Michael lo Rosa, who is a solid Democrat
former Press secretary for Kamala Harris, says this is going
to bite Democrats.
Speaker 5: Look, it's bad politics, and those are the kind of
Democrats that are really going to jeopardize the good chance
Democrats have of taking back the House next year. This
rhetoric asides from desecrating history and cheapening the meaning of
really bloody events in our history. You know, my Sicilian
grandparents might have something to say about fleeing Mussolini's Italy
and they would love to talk about sort of what
real fascism is. And we're really cheapening the memories of
those who suffered from Hitler and Franco. It does a disservice,
but it's just bad politics because it doesn't work. Democrats,
the vast majorities are silent. Majority of Democrats rejected a
lot of that rhetoric because they simply don't believe it.
If you want to win the Pennsylvania seventh, the Pennsylvania eighth,
or the Colorado eighth which Democrats lost and we need
to take back, that's not.
Speaker 6: Going to work.
Speaker 4: Democrats are just not.
Speaker 2: Buying that message. So Ben Dominic weighs in on the
message ways in on the message that Charlie Kirk gave,
but also the question that I've been asking he responds to,
which is is any going to be Is anyone, even
his widow, going to be able to keep Turning Point
USA alive? Because it seems to me that Charlie Kirk
was a unique individual, and I don't know if the
are going to be able to find somebody that can
be as influential as he was. Here's Ben dominic Well.
Speaker 7: Eric Kirk obviously has the capability and charisma and ability
to speak to these things, but I think that it's
going to require a lot more than that. To your point,
not only can you speak the development and when it
comes to the young voters in swing states across the country,
I've had multiple polsters tell me that when you dig
down into the numbers, they believe TPOSA and the effect
that it had on young voters, particularly young male voters,
was the difference, the deciding factor in multiple swing states.
And you see it particularly in college communities and cities
and towns across the country where you saw these shifts
that were double digits toward the president and toward conservative values.
And I think that that really is not going to
be replaced easily by any one person. It's going to
require a lot of people to be brave in this moment,
to stand up and be courageous as Charlie was. And
I think there's going to be a lot of names
that you and I don't even know yet who come
out of this movement that he helped develop over the years,
People who are going to stand up and be brave
as he was. And it's going to take some time,
but I think that they do exist in the existing
part because of the example that he gave to them
on a regular daily basis, one that I think has
lost so much for Americans, but is also a moment,
I think where people have to stand up and speak
for their values.
Speaker 2: So as they're getting ready to have the big memorial
for Charlie in Arizona on Sunday, the question is anything
new on the investigation. Law enforcement is apparently going back
and looking so far, they say they haven't found anybody
else that they would charge at this particular time with
a crime. Here's Jim Trustee, former federal prosecutor. Yeah, I'm
okay with a motive. Look.
Speaker 8: The timeline, though, serves a couple of purposes. Yes, you
look through it and try to figure out are there
anybody else, any other people out there that have some
sort of criminal culpability, And there's a chance that you
develop of something there. But you also are just building
the tightest case for the most premeditation you can establish.
You want to show that this was a plan that
was painstakingly done because that's going to affect the calculus
for kind of moral blameworthiness during the death penalty trial.
So I think that's kind of a huge component here.
And look for the motive. If I'm a prosecutor standing
up in closing argument, I'm holding up a.
Speaker 2: Bullet that says, catch this fascist.
Speaker 8: I mean, there's also the absence of any other interpersonal motive.
It's clearly a political assassination. But you've got literally physical
evidence and techt threads that make it abundantly clear, and
no matter how many people try to obfuscate this, that
the motive was to take out a conservative voice that
this guy and his boyfriend didn't seem to like.
Speaker 2: The ceremony itself on Sunday is being ramped up heavily
by security the facility, the NFL stadium there, which also
is interesting to me. It's going to be at two
o'clock Eastern time. It's going up against NFL football on
Sunday afternoon. And I just saw the ratings for the
first two weeks of the NFL season that thirty three
of thirty five television shows in the last two weeks
have been the top thirty three of the top thirty
five were NFL games. I mean, it's just the NFL
has a huge draw, so we'll see how it turns out.
And it's really not something that you should be thinking
about regarding ratings, but it will have a big crowd
and as a result of that, security is being ramped up. Glendale,
Arizona police officer has lays out some of the security precautions.
Speaker 9: We're aware of all the situations of the climate, We're
aware of feelings and then things that are being said online.
We just want to make sure that regardless of where
you fall in the political spectrum, whether you're attending to support,
whether you're attending to protest, we want everything to be peaceful,
we want everything to be safe, and we just want
to take care of everyone.
Speaker 2: Nicole Parker, former FBI agent. That doesn't matter why you're
going to be there, or they're going to make this
a high level, very high level security format, saying that
they would use for a Super Bowl.
Speaker 10: What it means for law enforcement is that there will
be droves and droves of law enforcement. President and for
those that are attending, I believe that this will be
a beautiful and safe memorial event, which Charlie Kirk definitely
deserves and his supporters deserve as well. So for law enforcement,
it will be treated almost like it's a super Bowl. Obviously,
this is not the planning that goes into a super Bowl.
Super Bowls are literally planned for a year and a
half two years out. But I promise you that every
single thing necessary will be there. We're talking things from again.
President Trump is going to be there, Vice President Vance,
much of President Trump's cabinet, So right there you have
the full services of the Secret Service. The Secret Service
will be going in and doing their standard operations. They
will sweep every single nook and cranny of that stadium
leading up to the event, making sure that it is
a sterile and safe environment and it is all clear
before anything occurs at that stadium. You will also be
seeing it's like an airport you're going through the airport.
There will be full magnutometers, no large bags, no drones,
no weapons. Expect long lines. You should expect to see
barricades on the streets. You should expect to see street closures.
No drones will be permitted, likely restricted airspace. There will
likely be a retractable roof, which I believe will likely
be closed for safety reasons. You know Super Bowls there
are oftentimes snipers up in the rafters of the stadium.
There are snipers inside the stadium, outside the stadium, swat
hostage rescue teams. Every single effort will be made. You
will see law enforcement in uniform. But what you won't
see is there will likely be hundreds of law enforcement
officers in plane street clothes that you don't even know
that they're there, and they will be walking the area
inside the venue outside the venue. This will not just
be restricted to inside the venue, It will be the
entire area if they were having their retractable roof open.
I am very pessimistic about open roof events at this
moment for obvious reasons, because of how Charlie Kirk's life
was taken. I do believe the roof will be closed
but I just think that the key is that you
are going to have people that do not agree with
Charlie Kirk that will be out there spewing negative and hate,
and we want to make sure that protesters are not
disturbing the event and they're not creating problems or issues.
On a safety or security level, we want everyone to
get along and to be safe. It will treat it
as if it is everything, and that's what law enforcement
will be doing. And again, what you're not seeing on
the ground level is behind the scenes, there are analysts
right now, intelligence analysts that are doing social media checks.
They're checking for online chat or any sort of potential
threats that they're seeing through the Internet, through gaming, through
whatever resources that law enforcement uses. I won't divulge all
of those at this time, but they will be making
sure that everything is safe and secure.
Speaker 2: And speaking of dangers, the President came out and said
that he is going to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization,
and a lot of questions are being brought up about
the fact that, well, who is Antifa? And what the
President also wants to do is zero in on where
are these groups getting their money. I don't know if
you won't find an address for Antifa, you won't find
a building with their name on it. But there's no
question that there are regular professional protesters that do make
a living, getting paid by somebody to go out and
to create violence at the very least and certainly disrupt
whatever else is going on. Here's what the President had
to say about Antifa.
Speaker 11: Do you believe that there is a vast terrorist movement
in the United States that people need to be aware of?
And is it responsible for Charlie Kirk's killing, for the
attempts on your life?
Speaker 12: And we'll find out maybe, But in the meantime, we're
going to do a big thing with respect to Antifa.
It's a sick group. I've been very, very sick group.
Antifa causes tremendous incitement, and the things they say and
the things they do are horrible. So we're going to
find out.
Speaker 2: Back to Jim Trustee, the former federal prosecutor, on is
there a way to do this under the current laws.
Speaker 8: That's a great question. It's a combination. Part of it
is just sending a widespread message to law enforcement that
I want the FBI, that I want the Department of
Justice to care about this as a criminal enterprise and
to look into it and to try to build cases.
But on a practical level, it does a couple of things.
It does make it easier to seize assets when you
identify assets as being associated with Antifa, and it also
allows you to pursue a material support charge, which we're
used to seeing with like material support of ISIS or
foreign entities. But it does allow for another criminal charge
with Antifa. But the rub has always been with Antifa,
you know where's the money coming from. What structure does
it have or not have? And frankly, if it has structure,
if it has people paying to bust protesters to different
cities and teaching them how to vandalize cities and tear
down statutes and imprison federal workers in courthouses, all that
stuff lends itself to a rico approach to the racketeering laws,
which I loved and lived with as a prosecutor for
many years. So there's a lot of tools on the table.
The question is whether an investigation will show kind of
amorphous spirit of left wing agitators or whether there's actually
some structure to it.
Speaker 2: So what Pentifa sounds like some sort of made up organization.
Here is a woman who actually did undercover work with
Antifa organizations, and this is what she had to say.
Speaker 13: In people with military experience, anti war is a very
big thing for Antifa, so they do hand to hand
combat trainings. I was just undercover with them in New
York City over the weekend where they had a whole
self defense class where they were teaching people how to violently,
you know, confront the police, but also defend themselves if
they needed to be put in that position.
Speaker 8: Well, it's kind of open, which I think makes it
an avenue that he can actually run down.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 8: The question typically is not what's the heart or the
physical heart of the entity, but whether they're operating within
the US, and so whether it's a foreign entity from
the Middle East or not. If they operate in the US,
that gives you the jurisdictional hook.
Speaker 2: I can tell you this much. There's been over the years,
I've seen different protests in Midtown Manhattan, and they have
It's what caught my eye many years ago was at
the beginning, at the front of the various protests moving
through the city that there are people that you go,
wait a minute, I've seen them before. They were here
for a protest last year or the year before. So
there are professional agitators and they lead a lot of
these protest groups. And there's a lot of people that
feel about the mission, but they're not members of Antifa.
But these people that get them stirred up and riled up,
they're very good at it and they do it professionally.
So the question is who is providing the money to them?
And that is what the government apparently is going to
start looking into to a topic much much less serious.
Kamala Harris's book One hundred and seven Days a number
of days for her campaign, shortest political campaign for president ever.
We know all of that. And so she's got this
book coming out next week and she's they're leaking out
all kinds of things, and I find it to be
kind of funny. We find out in the book that
Tim Walls was not her first choice, not at all.
In fact, what she said was that she was in
favor of picking Pete Boudha judge, but she said that
she did not pick him because we were asking people
to vote for a gay man in addition to a
black woman married to a Jewish man. And I just
took on that isn't Isn't that so Kamala Harris and
primarily the Democrats, this id politics sort of stuff about
are you a man? Are you a woman? What is
a woman? Are you a Democrat or Republican? Okay, fine,
but then you get into this whole thing about well
but wait a minute, but the candidate, I agree that
I don't think America would be very hard for people
to judge to get elected president. He tried, he did well,
but the Democrat Party took over and put Joe Biden
in instead. But it's like a lot of things like that.
I've talked before about Mitt Romney. There's just a certain
percentage of people that are against his religion that therefore
he just couldn't get elected. And I think the same
thing for Buddha Judge. Maybe somewhere down the road, a
gay man can be elected president, but right now I
think it is a handicap. And so she was right.
But the idea that she considered herself a black woman
and that she was married to a jew and is
married to a Jewish guy, that that would dawn on you,
and that's how you pick your president, I don't think.
So what about their views? What about their issues, and
Pete Buddha Judge was asked about this today and I
got to give him credit. He's basically going down the
same path about what about what you can do for
the people.
Speaker 1: I was surprised when I read that. I just believe
in giving Americans more credit than that. You know, my
experience in politics has been the way that you earn
trust with voters is based mostly on what they think
you're going to do for their lives, not on categories.
And I wouldn't have run for president. I didn't believe that,
you know. I was right here in Indiana when this
state turned blue for the first time since LBJ, and
it wasn't Bill Clinton who did it. It wasn't John
Kerry who did it. That happened in two thousand and
eight when Barack Obama was leading a ticket, and just
again and again, my personal experience getting re elected in
South Bend and a lot of those things have just
shown me that you just have to go to voters
with what you think you can do for them. That's
why I'm here in Indiana right now. We did this
big rally on redistrict think trying to make sure that
we can make the case for politics. That's about the
results we can get for people and not about all
these other things.
Speaker 2: Well, say what you want about Vodha Judge, but he's
got the right idea that you, as a politician, go
out there and tell people what you can do for
them and they may actually in turn vote for you,
despite whatever personal id you might have. So it was weird. Also,
she in the book also she apparently I don't know
what she's doing, but she apparently trashed Joe Biden in
a big way. She says, there, I am, I'm getting
ready for my big debate against Donald Trump. It's the
biggest moment of my life. And they say Biden's on
the phone and wants to talk to you. She picked
up the phone and he starts complaining to her about
he heard that she was trashing him. He made it
all about himself. And here's the lady trying to get
ready for the big debate with Trump, and what's Biden
doing making it about him, totally distracting her. So she
threw him under the bus, Which makes me wonder, is
Kamala Harris throwing dem I mean, Tim Walls, I'd rather
have Fudhah judged in the goofy Tim Waltz, guy, what
a clown. But I mean, she's throwing all these people
under the bus. Her former running mate Tim Walls, she
threw Biden under the bus. I got the feeling that
maybe she is done with politics and said, I'm not
running for president in twenty twenty eight because if she does,
she's got a lot of Democrats that are raided ready
to stab her in the back since she is basically
throwing them under the bus today. And still some reverberations
from the FED doing their interest rate cut, the first
interest rate cut this year. Here we are in September
and the Fed has not lowered interest rates at all
this year. So now they have and they're expected to
continue to do that according to the market.
Speaker 1: But it's.
Speaker 2: What has happened the interest rates for mortgages. And again
there's no one rate, but Freddie Mack is the survey
every Thursday, and they said the mortgage rate is now
down to six point two six percent. That is the
lowest since last October. It's still too high. A lot
of people in the housing market think that until there's
a five in front of that number, markets just kind
of prices are still too high. Things are starting to
pick up, but I mean, you really want to put
an engine on the housing market, it's got to get
down into the fives. The other thing about it is
is the spread mortgage rates should be about one and
a half percent over the ten year treasury, and the
ten year treasury is around four just a little over
four percent, so it should be five and a half
percent for mortgages, but it's not, so it's still too high.
Art Hogan, big Wall Street guy, weighed in on the
FED cutting interest rates.
Speaker 6: Well a couple of reasons. I think the biggest of
those reasons is we've been waiting for interust rates to
come down a bit, and the yield on the US
tenure has moved its way from four point seven dowine
to four percent, so that's a positive for businesses and
business is borrowing. And clearly, the fact that the Fed
is comfortable enough at this juncture to cut their Fed
Funds rate, something we've been waiting for since last December,
clearly speaks to the fact that they're comfortable enough with
their inflation mandate, meaning they know inflation is above their target,
but are more concerned about their full employment mandate. In
the labor data that's certainly gotten soff central life. So
I think the market is really celebrating a couple of things,
an artificial intelligence revolution and a favorable interest rate environment
that is just starting.
Speaker 2: So how did the markets today? We set records yesterday, Well,
we set new records today. The Dow new record high
of one hundred seventy two, the Dow at forty six thousand,
three point fifteen, the SMP up thirty two, the NASDAK
up one hundred and sixty, all of those are records.
The price of gold up forty one dollars to thirty
seven nineteen, oil fell almost a buckets at sixty two
dollars and some change. So that's it for today. I
hope you have a wonderful weekend. We'll be back on Monday.
We hope to see you then