Speaker 1: And welcome. Welcome everybody. Hello, how are you welcome to
the Big podcast. It is Tuesday. Today is the last
day of the month, the last day of the quarter.
It's September thirtieth year of Our Lord, twenty twenty five.
My name is Tom Sullivan. Before if I forget to
mention it later, one of the things about the end
of a quarter Wall Street is just ignore it. I
don't know what it's going to do, but just ignore it.
Because a lot of the major the hedge funds, the
mutual funds, all the big money managers out there, they
basically do what's called window dressing before the end of
the court because that's when they have to print what
their results have been and what they have as part
of their portfolio and all that so, and then tomorrow
it will be unwined whatever it was that they did
the window dressing with to make it look better, and
then a couple of days later we'll get back to normal. Meantime,
how you doing. We've got a lot to go over today.
This morning there was the big confab at Quantico, Virginia
with all the generals and admirals along with the Defense
War Secretary Pete Hagsith and the President also showed up,
which brings up the whole question about leadership. We've got
the government shut down. Sorry, I didn't mean to chuckle,
so it might. I mean, you know, they get all
I'm all excited in Washington about this is Oh my gosh,
we're going to shut down the government. It doesn't I don't.
I don't mean to be blase about it, but it's
a whole hum moment. Listen, if it shuts down for
a day or two or three, it's not going to
do anything other than give a bunch of government employees
a couple of days off. They'll get their pay. Oh no,
they'll get their pay later. I think who the way
to solve this is to cut off the pay for
members of Congress and do not, under any circumstances let
them recoup that payment later on. No, you don't do
your work, you don't get paid. That'll never happen because
they're the ones who have to pass that. But I
think it would be admirable. I would vote for somebody
who voted for that. So that's that's tonight, and get
the federal fiscal year ends on September thirtieth, and so
we'll get into a little bit of the of the
finger pointing going on today. Harry Enton has some comments
about the Democrat Party I'll share with you, and Charlie
Kirk's group TP Turning Point USA has a has a
a event at a college campus tonight in Utah, Yeah,
Utah State in Logan, Utah. So we'll touch base on
that as well. Let's let's start, if we may, with
how the day started this morning. There they were all
the generals and admiralson couldn't see they had a camera
in the back of First of all, I was even
surprised that they televised this. I thought there was no way,
but everybody had no They were covering it live. I
saw a Fox had it, CNN had a bunch of
people had it. And the camera was in the back
of a of a big auditorium. I think there's eight
hundred generals and admirals something like that. So it was
a broom that was probably held a thousand. It was
pretty full and from the back of the room all
you could see was a bunch of ball guys and uh,
gray haired guys. So there're yeah, well, there's no kids
that are that are generals or admirals. So uh. Anyway,
they were very attentive and like a good military gathering,
there's no applause, there's no cheering, there's no whistling. Uhuh,
none of that. So it was rather I don't know.
There was a lot of people that seemed to like it.
And one of them that surprised me General Wesley Clark,
who is a former NATO commander. He uh, I mean
he was for the I mean he commanded NATO force.
This is when he was a four star general in
our US Army. But I mean, he's got a illustrious career,
but he's a big lefty and he doesn't usually like
anything that Republicans do, especially Donald Trump. But listen to
what he had to say about the big meeting at Quantico, and.
Speaker 2: There were parts of that speech I really liked, and
that was part of it that was political. I'll tell
you what I really liked. We learned in Vietnam, and
I was one of those men that fought in Vietnam
and spent a lot of my career reflecting on it,
that you should not commit American forces unless you commit
him to a decisive objective and go in to win.
I worked with General Colin Powell on the preparation for
General John Wickham to become the Army Chief of Staff
in eighty three, and we wrote that to General Wickham
in his book, that his transition book, and that was
the watchword of the Defense Department. Asked for Weinberger with
secretary with General Powell was there. They put it in
the Weinberger doctrine. Yes, we did that in the Gulf War.
That's exactly what we did. It was, in a sense,
the army's revenge for Vietnam. We won decisively. That was
who we were. So I liked that part of the speech.
But the military has to serve overall national policy as well.
So during the nineteen nineties, after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, we did use our forces in other means.
We stopped slaughter in Rwanda. We used them to end
a vicious war in Yugoslavia. We stopped ethnic cleansing in
Yugoslavia twice with the use of military forces, created a
new nation. After nine to eleven, the nation felt it
was at war. We went to Afghanistan. That was a
fight we had to have. Maybe it wasn't done right.
We didn't actually get Osama Bin Laden. But those men
that went there were all trained by people who fought
in Vietnam, by those of us who believed in decisive victory.
We did win a decisive victory over the Taliban, just
didn't know what to do with it. And those armed
forces that went into Iraq in two thousand and three
a magnificent military performance getting to Baghdad. We knew those soldiers,
many of them had worked for me. My former Aid
de camp was a silver Star winner. He led the
assault into Baghdad. He was a warrior. Many of these
people have retired, but we never felt that we were
a woke military. Didn't even know what it meant. We
picked the best people for promotion, regardless of their race
or gender. That was the standard. So I like what
Heksas said about lethality, warrior winning, being decisive. General Milly
I thought, as a fine general, he certainly qualifies as
a war fighter. So there's some politics mixed into what
Secretary said. But if he takes the armed forces forward,
if he puts the emphasis on lethality, if he really
does put the money out there to train and maintain,
that's a great thing, and we need it because we're
going into a very difficult period of time.
Speaker 1: So I was pleasantly surprised. Wesley Clark pretty much liked
the speech. She said it in a couple of different
occasions where he liked that part of the speech. Little
politics thrown in. But let's take a look at a
couple of others here, because what actually go back to
General Clark for a second. What he was talking about
was that the political people were the ones who interfered
with the war machine of the United States military during Vietnam.
And anybody who served in Vietnam knows that. Anybody you
have to if you're alive during this during the Vietnam War,
you knew. Lyndon Johnson literally had maps out on his
desk in the Oval office directing where the soldiers should be,
and where the battalion should move to, and where the
bombing raid should go. It was a disaster because of
Lyndon Johnson. Just one of the many reasons I think
he was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.
William Cohen, former Defense Secretary, reacts to the fact that
one of the things that hag Seth was talking about
was he wants everybody to be fit everybody, whether you're
a private or whether you're a general, everybody has to
be fit, in shape, all that sort of stuff, and
William Cohen jumped on that. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure what he is suggesting there. Do I
want to see to our troops be fit and conform
to the best standards possible, both in grooming and also
in physical capability. Absolutely, But the question is do you
want your soldiers to operate under fear or through admiration.
I'd like to think that leadership is a combination. Yes,
you want to fear that you may be punished for
something you don't measure up to, but you also want
to admire the people who are leading you.
Speaker 4: And if we're doing that, if that's what he's saying,
I don't have a problem with it. But I think
the notion you're going to start using physical punishment for individuals,
I don't know that he's saying that, but the implication
being if you've done something wrong, expect a very physical response.
Speaker 3: I don't think he's saying that. I hope not, But
in any event, I agree with what he's saying in
terms of greater physicality. I want to see that I
wanted to see it when I was there, and I
tried to emulate that by going to the gym every
day to be with the officers who are over at
the other Pentagon. So I think it's a good thing
in terms of beyond what he's saying, I think it's
open to cout.
Speaker 1: So Colin was a Republican in I forget the House
of the Senate. He was a politician Republican, and he
was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, so he was the
only Republican environment remember, right on Bill Clinton's cabinet. But
what he was referring to was HeiG Seth was basically
saying he wants to make boot camp scary and strong
and basically tear you down and build you back up
as a soldier. And so it wasn't like harming people,
but it was you know, do fifty push ups or
run a couple of miles, or you got to do
some physical thing. And I couldn't agree more. But at
the same time, I think back to some of the
people that I knew in the military. Hag Seth was
talking about the fact that he sees fat generals walking
around walking around the Pentagon and I'm thinking of the
military is not on the front lines of battle. Most
of them are behind the scenes, whether they're in taking
care of ordinance or maintenance or whatever it might be.
There's a lot of really you need smart, smart, smart
planners that are technology experts. The military is becoming more
and more technology oriented, So I get what hag Seth
is talking about about. Everybody needs to be able to
be fit. But if somebody's overweight, or some little person
that's not very big and strong, I don't really care.
If they're not on the front lines. You want to
set an example, especially if you're in leadership. But if
you're working on some radar facility one thousand miles from
the front lines, yeah, whatever, Let's see who else we
got one more? Senator Lieutenant General Mark Schwartz, former Army
guys retired. This is his react.
Speaker 5: Well, I think the commands across the globe that you know,
all the combatant commands, regional combat commands, they're they're well manned,
and certainly there's near real time, if not real time,
communications with the commands that these flag officers and general
officers came from to be in this venue. So in
terms of risk, Wolf I don't see it as a
as a real risk. I think this was an opportunity
for the Secretary of War to speak largely to those
that lead our military. I certainly participated in this at
the army level when the Chief would call us back
in from you know, around the globe absence of combat
deployments or if you were leading combat formations to do this.
So I don't see a great risk of this. Again,
this is about unity of message and making sure that
all the leadership within the military, within the War Department,
and those that you know, lead our servicemen and women
around the globe understand his intent and the presidents. Although
some of the comments by the ponus, if you're a
military person sitting in a room when the Secretary of
Work stresses the importance of being a political some of
the political rhetoric, you know, it makes you uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was asked about whether or not it was
dangerous to have all these generals and flag officers in
this meeting. What about what about being on site to
command whatever you're commanding, and he said, Nah, everything's real
time communications now anyway. So it was well received. What
Haig Seth was talking about is that there has been
decades of decay and that we've promoted leaders for the
wrong reasons like gender and race, and he wanted to
be on merit and merit and merit. And then again
he really drove home the whole thing about being in
physical combat shape, even though a lot of people in
the military are never on the front lines of combat.
But well received. President was there. He spoke for over
an hour and you know, nobody, nobody clapped, nobody booed,
nobody did anything. So the big meeting was said and done.
Harry Entton did some about leadership, but not about military leadership.
He looked into leadership of the political parties. He specifically
talked to Democrats about strong leadership. And this is what
Harry found out.
Speaker 6: Why is it that the Democrats, in my mind, are
facing more pressure those Democratic leaders and that is because
their base thinks that their party leaders are week week week.
Look at this Democrats on who has strong leaders Look
at this. Fifty four percent say neither party. Fifty four
percent Democrats say neither party has strong leaders. Among Republicans,
eighty percent of their base things Republicans have strong leaders,
yet among Democrats. Just get this, just thirty five percent
of Democrats say their party has strong leaders. When you
add together this fifty four percent with this eleven percent,
we're talking about two thirds of Democrats who say neither
party or Republicans have stronger leaders, as compared to just
thirty five percent who say their own parties have strong leaders.
As I said at the top, week week week is
how Democrats view their leaders in Washington. And this is
the other thing. It's not just that Democrats think that
their party leaders are week week week. They also think
they don't get anything done. I mean, take a look here, okay,
Democrats and who get things done? Again, it's just fifty
we get this, fifty percent of Democrats say neither party
gets anything done. Just forty one percent of Democrats say
their own party get stuff done. When you add in
this nine percent of Democrats who say the Republican Party
is more likely to get things done. With neither party,
we're talking about three and five Democrats who say neither
party or Republicans are more likely to get things done
than the Democrat Party. And again, that is the complete
inverse of how Republicans feel. Because seventy seven percent of
Republicans think their own party leaders are likely to get
things done, compared to just forty one percent of Democrats,
about half that level who think their own leaders get
things done. Again, Democrats just don't think very highly of
their party at this point, and that is why there's
so much pressure on those leaders, in my mind, in Washington,
to actually do something that satisfies their base. If you
think your party has weak leaders, if you think your
party can't get anything done, well, this is I think
the real pressure facing Democrats at this particular point. Democrats
who think their parties need major changes are more. Look
at this, fifty seven percent of Democrats say their party
needs major changes are more compared to just forty three
percent who say minor or no changes. Again, very different
than the Republican Party, where twenty one percent of Republicans.
Only twenty one percent say their party needs major changes
are more. Again, a lot of pressure on Democratic leaders
to actually do something their base likes.
Speaker 7: For a change.
Speaker 3: Oh, I get it.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are looking for leadership and they're struggling right now.
They don't have it, and the Republicans seem to be
doing well, so they most Republicans like the Republican leadership.
I don't like any of the politicians, but that's for
another day. What else do we have here today? Oh? Yes,
the big government shut down. I well, I mean, we'll
see how what happens if there's an eleventh hour deal tonight.
But as we're recording this podcast, there's no deal and
it doesn't look like there's actually going to be one.
And if you're worried about it, you should not be. Yes,
TSA will be. There'll be nice to them if you're
going to the airport, because they're going to be on duty,
but they're not going to be getting paid. They'll get
their paycheck later, so I'm sure they might be a
little drumpier today or tomorrow, I should say. But as
far as all of this, Russell Bott, who's the the
head of the Management and Budget for the government, the
Officer Management and Budget, brought up a couple of salient
points about the fact, and I have to correct myself.
Yesterday I said, you know, so the Republicans want to
just have a clean bill to just kick the can
down the road until I think like the third week
of November, and no additional spending, no cuts, no changes, nothing,
just keep the government open while they negotiate seems reasonable,
and I said, well, but the Democrats want to put
some money up to help with Obamacare premiums. And this
gets I said, it's got to be at least in
the millions. No, I was way wrong. And Russell Vott
talks about it. How it's one point five trillion dollars
more the Democrats want to spend and they say it's
for Obamacare premiums. Here's Russell bat.
Speaker 5: We want to keep this government open.
Speaker 8: It is not good for the American people to have
the government shut down for any period of time. We
will manage it appropriately, but it is something that can
all be avoided. It can all be avoided by accepting
a reasonable position, which is what the House has passed
and what sits at the Senate desk, which is to
continue to fund the government with a short term continuing resolution.
It has never been a viewpoint that one and a
half trillion dollars is a reasonable amount of spending to
be included on a short term CR. This is hostage taking.
It is not something that we are going to accept.
And we hope that the Democrats come back for the
brink fund this government and allow us to move forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you hear what he said. One and a half trillion.
The Democrats want to shove in here one and a
half trillion dollars more in spending then on top, and
that's supposed to be for Obamacare premiums. What Obamacare did
was they came out and they said that this is
going to reduce the cost of healthcare. It did not.
The premiums are still they're less than regular insurance. They
don't cover as much as regular insurance when most doctors
won't see them. But when they passed Obamacare, they said,
all right, we understand these premiums. Obamacare is for people,
lower income people, so we'll help you out with the
premiums for ten years. Well, the ten years is up,
and theoretically they should be cutting the premium support off completely,
but what the Republicans are saying is, let's just leave
it as it is and we'll negotiate it over the
next six weeks or whatever they want to kick the
can down the road for. In addition to that, they
also want to put another five hundred billion I believe
it is, maybe it's a million for PBS and NPR
that was taken out of the budget. So these are
the things that the Democrats are trying to do is
cram in more spending. They just are incorrigible about their
desire to just spend and spend not a little bit,
but a lot of money. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House,
he had this to say.
Speaker 9: The problem is that Chuck Schumer and Leader Jefferies refuse
to acknowledge the simple facts. Let's review what the simple
facts are. By way of review, the House is getting
back to the way the regular appropriations process is supposed
to work. Twelve separate appropriations bills passed through the House
Appropriations Committee, three off the floor. The Senate doing their
work as well. All this in bipartisan fashion. By the way,
they passed three bills in the Senate. Those bills don't
match up exactly. So for the first time in years,
since twenty eight nineteen, you have a conference committee that
is being constituted between the House and a Senate. This
is the way Uphill becomes a law. They work out
the differences. All this is happening in bipartisan fashion. The
problem is we've run out of clock. September thirtieth is
the end of the fiscal year, so we need a
little more time. So what we did in the Republican
majority is the right, responsible, simple thing, A clean continuing resolution,
a short term, non partisan continuing resolution. It's only twenty
four pages in linked. Leader Thune has a copy if
you want to see the exhibit. There's nothing partisan in here,
no policy writers, none of our big party preferences, because
we want to do the right thing by the American
people and allow more time for negotiation. Now there's a
reason that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have come out
here to stomp the feed saying that they can't go
along with this. They're trying to bring in extraneous issues.
They issued a counter proposal. You should go take a
look at what they requested. One point five trillion dollars
in new spending that is unrelated to the ongoing appropriations process.
They wanted to, as you said, restore taxpayer funded benefits. Okay,
hard working taxpayers in America. They want to take your
fund and give that for benefits to illegal aliens. They
want to restore that because we got rid of it.
They want to prop up left leaning media outlets. Five
hundred million they threw in on top of that one
and a half trillion dollars on a seven week stop
get funding measure. We're not going to do that. They
know we can't do that, and we never happened to
pass During the Biden administration, there were thirteen threatened shutdowns.
The Republicans in the minority did the right thing. We
kept the government open. We're simply asking for the Democrats
do the same. If the Democrats make the decision to
shut the government down, the consequences are on them. And
I think it's absolutely tragic. We've never said that was
a good idea. We never believed it is. And I
want you to remember when we voted in the House,
we passed it out of the House. The House has
done its job. We did that almost two weeks ago.
Every Democrat in the House except one voted to shut
the government down. That is the record, and don't forget it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, they're trying to point fingers at the Democrats,
and Democrats trying to point fingers at the Republicans. But
I mean, and I got plenty to gripe about their
spending and the way they operate in Washington, But this
is simple. The Republicans, they did not get it done.
They're in charge. Shame on them, but they really just
say we just want to kick the can down the road,
not change anything. And the Democrats are trying to shove
at least one and a half trillion dollars of more spending.
I just I can't believe anybody Democrat or Republican would
be rooting for that. So if you wake up tomorrow
morning there's no government, I would not I would not worry.
If it goes on for some time, they'll have some impacts,
but I am fine. It just doesn't bother me. In
the slightest tonight at a university in Utah, Yep, Charlie
Kirk's group. They are going to let me see, I've
got the Here starts tonight at the Utah State University
that is in Logan, Utah. The panel will be there
of Senator Mike Lee, Congressman Andy Biggs, former Congressman Jason Shavitz,
and the Governor of Utah Spencer Cox, along with Alex Clark. Well,
I know who all of those people are, except for
Alex Clark. I had to look up Alex Clark. She's
a young lady who is of course she has a podcast,
has don't you have a podcast. Anyway, she grew up
in Kentucky, I believe, I don't know. In any case, No,
she grew up in Indiana, and she worked for a
radio station in Kentucky, and she has now become a
podcaster and has aligned herself with Turning Point USA. She's
the host of Culture Apothecary, covers conservative commentary, pop culture,
and wellness topics. So she's there. But the rest of
them are a bunch of politicians. And I'm thinking, I
keep hoping that Turning Point USA can keep Charlie Kirk's
vision alive. But I'm looking at this and thinking, this
is not going to do it. Folks not have a
bunch of old fogy members of Congress and a governor.
I mean, there are a bunch of old guys that
are going to go out there and try and connect
with these students at Utah State University. I don't know
if this was originally on the schedule, because when Charlie
Kirk laid out the schedule for his series of going
around to various colleges starting with the through the fall
and I guess into the winter, it started with the
place in orm Utah where he was killed. That was
stop number one on September tenth. Stop number two apparently
is this Utah State University in Logan, Utah, starts tonight
at six thirty mountain time. So the security issue around
all of this obviously needs to be fixed. And Bobby
chacone former FBI guy, kind of went over some of
this hold on. I've got a list here of some
of the failures that were made at at the rally
in orm Utah. Number one, the courtyard was surrounded by buildings,
which is a security no.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 1: There were no drones deployed, there were six officers security
officers on site at that event. There were no bag checks,
there were no metal detectors. Well, that's interesting that that's
the list that they came up with. Is said that
those were security failures, but I'm looking at that and
going the only one that really made a different the
guy was on a rooftop. So that's what they have.
So they they are wanting to put for the new
security measures. They want campus police working with local, state
and federal partners. They want barricades erected, they want all
attendees to pass through metal detectors. They want bag pack backpacks,
and the larger bags, prohibited, security searches of all small purses,
concealed carry permits for anyone with a firearm. Oh my gosh,
no outside signs, and no re entry. That's what they're planning.
That's the idea that they're coming up with. Here's Bobby
Chacon's reaction to all of this event that's going to
be taking place tonight.
Speaker 5: It's unusual.
Speaker 11: It's almost echoes of Butler, Pennsylvania, right. I mean, you know,
how do you have such a high profile person who
has outstanding death threats against him in that kind of
environment where the threats can come from so many different places,
and yet you don't have a larger security apparatus in place.
Speaker 3: It really, you know, there's room for questions here.
Speaker 11: One of the things is that the way Charlie liked
to conduct these things is very very you know, face
to face, really in person contact that the people are
right up close to him, and so you know, he
did like to get out among the people, and that
always presents that kind of additional danger. But at the
same time, there are not you know, you don't have
to have the level of a presidential security, but there
could be somewhere in between. You could you know, put
people on rooftops. I mean, rooftops are now what we're
seeing more and more used for these type of situations.
So maybe, you know, just a few officers on rooftops
nearby is enough to kind of stave off, you know,
an attempt like that. Well, I mean it tells me
that they realize that there's still an outstanding threat out
there to people in Charlie's movement. They wouldn't be doing
this if there wasn't, you know, outstanding threats against Charlie's legacy,
and so I think now they're thinking, you know, you know, unfortunately,
after the fact, they're thinking we need better protection because
there's a lot of pushback, violent pushback on people that
are speaking up their minds like Charlie was. Yeah, that's
the unfortunate part. Charlie himself might have not wanted all
of this. He wanted that personal interaction. He wanted people
to feel like they could come and show up and
have these conversations without it being an armed camp. But unfortunately,
the way Charlie was murdered kind of dictates how we
have to operate going forward.
Speaker 1: So the event is tonight, and again I do wish
them well I just look at the at the list
of speakers and I'm thinking, Mike Lee, he's nice. It
seems like an I met him once. He's a nice
enough guy. Andy Biggs, boring, Jason Shavitz, boring, Spencer Cox,
he's just media hound looking for his fifteen minutes of fame.
And then they got this young lady, Alex Clark, who
will be there. So I wished him well. And I
don't know about with the combination of old people speaking
and then a whole bunch of heavy security, whether this
is going to really help or hurt the future of
these campus visits by a turning point USA. So let's
get some phone calls in. I haven't done this for
a while, So let me go to the phones and
let's see what you in the audience have to say.
Let's start with Eric, who is very concerned about all
of the violence that we have seen and he's having
trouble with it.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm just listening. You're a great dig podcast for
today about the violence. I'm just listening. And the first
thought was, like, you know, to say, hey, you know,
stay away from veterans and transgender and people who has
associated these transgender people this is twenty twenty five warning
I kind of had in my mind, but then I thought,
you know, when you told about this, you know there's
drunk drivers hitting the crops and the board and all
this stuff. I mean, I just can't think about those violence,
you know. I mean, it's just too graphic. I mean,
my mind is just not able to handle all this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure he's not alone. There's a lot of people
having a hard time with handling all the violence that
we've seen, and boy, we have had a rash of it,
no question about it. Ricochet also called in wanted to
know about the dollar versus gold.
Speaker 12: Hey, tom Rick Ochet, I ran across a very interesting
post on Reddit the other day. I bought a bunch
of gold in my Ira back in March, and it's
up twenty three percent since then. So this post on
Reddit said you got to check what it's up in euros.
So I did. My gold in dollars is up twenty
three percent. In Europe, it's only up thirteen percent. Is
that a good thing for me, right you? Or does
that mean everybody who's up ten percent in their stockholdings
is staying level because the dollar has dropped ten percent?
Speaker 13: Let me know see ye.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, congratulations got gold less. What'd you say,
may March something like that of twenty three percent if
the dollar is down, But if it's not going to
hurt you, you'll get your increase in gold that you
can translate that into real money. Twenty three percent more
real money in your pocket. But if the dollar drops
ten percent, what it means is that imports are more expensive.
So if you buy something from overseas, forget the tariffs,
just the exchange and value of currency. It means that
if the dollar goes down, foreign prices, foreign products, their
prices go up. And also foreign travel. You want to
go on European vacation or go to Asia or Latin America.
If you travel, your dollar won't go as far. So
that's two of the things. So if you're not buying
things from overseas and you aren't planning on traveling receives,
then you're good. But as the dollar goes down, it
can lead to higher inflation, which could mean the FED
is fussing about everything and they may not continue to
lower interest rates if they see the dollar continuing to
go lower. And if you're a company in the US
that does business overseas. Congratulations, because people will be buying
more of your product because your products are cheaper for foreigners,
and foreign products are more expensive for us when the
dollar goes down. So congratulations Ricochet. And here's a caller
who disagrees with me and with Kevin O'Leary. We were
talking about the H one B visas the other day,
and this guy is not happy with my view of it,
nor mister Wonderfuls. Here's the caller.
Speaker 14: Could not disagree with you or Kevin O'Leary more. Bringing
people from outside countries to rob our people from jobs.
That's what America's been doing now for forty years. Why
would you do that? Why don't just educate our own
people very able to do the job just as good.
It's not better?
Speaker 3: Why Tom?
Speaker 14: Why?
Speaker 1: Well, I thought, I explained the other day. Yes, there were.
I've had calls that goes back quite a few years.
I'm talking maybe twenty years ago. I had calls from
people that were in the tech sector and were upset
because they were being laid off because the company was
hiring foreign workers on H one B visas they could
and they would pay them less, and so they were
getting basically shoved out the door. But the caller says, well,
why don't we just educate more of our people here.
The problem is you've got to get people that will
sign up for degrees in science and technology and engineering
and math, and that is what we need. And that
is why China is graduating ten engineers to AR one.
So we are educating as many as we can handle,
but we're not educating enough of them. So if we
don't have If you're a company and you need ten
engineers and you say, I'm American, top of the line,
first of the first in line, come on in Americans,
and you get one engineer and you got nine guys
from China or nine women from China, you need ten.
So you're going to hire the people from overseas. And
that's where the H one B visa comes in. We
are not doing the hiring. We are not doing the
education to get enough people for our companies to hire.
Our companies have hired everyone who's available in a lot
of the science, technology, and engineering and math. We don't
have enough people. It's a it's a it's a shame
on our education system that we don't. But we don't.
And here's the grumpy guy from Reno. See what he
has to ripe about today.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's a grumpy old man again. I just got
just it hit me. You know, I always think of it,
but I know you I'm taking up a lot of
your time. But I'm just a regular guy. I'm going
to sabor all my life and I don't know. I
think with everybody's retirement plans in a shock market just
is just not a good idea. It kind of goes
along with four hundred and fifty million guns in the country.
At least those things just thrown add up to a
good to a good future. I'm gone take care of body.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks a grumpy guy. I don't see anything grumpy
about that. Yeah, there's there's a four hundred and fifty
million guns. You're never going to get rid of all
of them. We'll still have some gun violence from time
to time, and nobody's for that. But uh, and putting
all your money in the stock market, I hope you're not.
A stock market is for some of your money, but
not one hundred percent for most people. Some people are,
especially young people. I'm all for that. But grumpy makes
a couple of good points. Here's another one. From grumpy.
Speaker 7: Reno holmost gay. I think we're up for a big showdown.
Sooner're in the healthcare division. We'll see what the Democrats
do and the Republicans there they might have a deal
already made, but this one's I think Democrats might full
of sneak attack on them.
Speaker 14: They should, They've.
Speaker 7: They've tackled, They've done a lot of tough issues over
the year. Over the years, we'll see that nobody's talking
about this one. There's so much else going on, and
this is I think healthcare is gonna be a big,
a big issue in the next couple of weeks. Here
we'll see which way missus Kirk takes his foundation. That
was one crazy, bad deal. You know, can't be violent
anything to answer, period, But we'll see. You know, I
think I don't know. That was sad, sad stuff. She
might be the United I have all go on.
Speaker 1: Well, like you said earlier, Rob, I have nothing but
good wishes for Erica Kirk and turning Point USA. But
I'm with I'm with Well, he says he's homeless, and
he brought up healthcare, and cuts in healthcare are going
to effect probably the homeless in the poorest of those
among us, no question about it. So we'll see what
the reverberation is when we get done with all the
negotiations back in DC. And to finish off the phone calls,
we got two of them from Lorie the comment line, Lady,
there's one talking about the potential of a government shutdown.
Maybe a good thing.
Speaker 13: If the federal government shuts down, does that mean the
IRS will no longer do audits or accept payments? Now,
that would be a true tragedy.
Speaker 1: Actually, well they won't. They won't be closed permanently. But yeah,
the IRS, well the staff will have to go home,
so yeah, they will stop doing audits. No, they'll accept
your payment. You still got to pay on time, because
I don't know how that works, but you don't want
to be late. And then she also brings up the
mayor race here in New York City.
Speaker 13: Mom Donnie says he's going to build beautiful government built
housing in New York. Doesn't he know that government built
housing makes the migrant hotels look like Buckingham Palace.
Speaker 1: I don't think he does. I don't know how his
mind works. He's kind of in a fantasy land of
some kind where he thinks he's going to be able
to make everything just lovely. So we'll wait and see
how that works out as well. Meantime, as we wrap
up the first quarter of the year, Like I said,
I wouldn't put a lot of weight in Wall Street's
numbers because they're doing all the pretty things for their portfolios,
the big money managers. But it did turn out to
be a positive day today. The now up eighty one
points to forty six thousand, three ninety seven s and
P up twenty seven, NAZDAC up sixty eight. Price of
gold up twenty seven dollars to thirty eight eighty two.
Boil down a buck sixty two dollars now for one
barrel of oil. Thank you for coming by today. We're
going to be back here again tomorrow. Hope to see
you that