Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Indeed, we do. Lots of interesting things happening this morning. First of all, they managed to locate that F thirty five. We've got an update. We're down there, we found it. Congratulations everybody. Also, we have Vladimir Zelenski in town today. We'll update you on what's going on with him, and also some doings in the Republican caucus kind of civil war breaking into the open, which is very interesting. We also have an update about where Trump is going to
be for the next Republican debate. Spoiler alert, it is not at that debate. He is actually headed to Detroit, going to give a speech to workers there. And try to signal his support in some way for the autoworkers. So we'll break that down for you, but also have some updates on the housing market and just how that is factoring into twenty twenty four in a big way, very much undercovered. Bill Maher has backed down. He will not be restarting his show, so we'll give you his reasons.
And we also have an incredible clip of MSNBC trying to cover for Kamala Harris that is truly extraordinary.
There's a lot going on there, yes, indeed, but as you said, Crystal, well actually before you even get to that, we just want to say once again thank you to all the premium subscribers who've been signing up and helping support our work. We were really proud yesterday to be able to bring voices from the striking workers themselves by
our partnership with Jordan Chariton over at Status KUP. That's what your hard earned money is helping support, you know, not just the focus groups, the studio and all of that, but continue to look for opportunities like that where we can fill in and it's one of the things I'm most proud of, I think being able to do this show with you is. You know, yesterday we had a tremendous amount of interest on our block about the UAW. You know, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of yews things
that were listened to. People wrote in actual striking workers themselves, And you know, I don't think there's a real media outlet out there's another media outlet that is there that can claim, you know, that their highest ratings come from covering real structural economic issues and that they use their money to support journalism specifically to try and highlight that. So that's what you guys are helping us build. And
I just want to say thank you once again. So Breakingpoints dot com if you are able.
Yes, absolutely, and one of their little teas, we have interview with Andrew Yang today.
Yeah, oh I forgot that.
We'll be posting later so make sure to look for that as well. And it was really neat talking to Neil de grass Tyson. Oh yeah, that was fun yesterday. I know you enjoyed talking I really did.
I couldn't help that. Well, it's fun, it's a little it's a change up.
And already the UFO people are responding, yes, as you said, Andrew Yang, we're gonna be interviewing him. That will be dropping on our podcast feed later. Of course, it will drop immediately after we're done. For our preubscribers, it will drop later on in the day, depending on when we decide to post it publicly. So another reason to go ahead and to sign up. So let's get to the
missing jet, the F thirty five. So, after a lot of consternation and nearly almost twelve hours, they did end up finding the jet, and you will be shocked to learn they found it very close to where the pilot ejected. So why did we have to all look so hard? Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. It was found in Williamsburg County, South Carolina. There was no actual official declaration from the Pentagon, which makes the
entire thing even more interesting. So basically what came out is that very very near to where the pilot was safely ejected over North Charleston, it turns out that the
jet had gone down. However, the flight path for the South Carolina wing of Civil Air Patrol showed that airsh air search had been going on all over the entire state and that despite they had to search quote nearly ninety percent of search and rescue missions in the United States for the Civil Air Patrol, So it took them hours to be able to find this thing crystal, even though it ended up being very close to where the
actual ejection took place. There were a lot of you know, amateur salutes posting the flight pattern of how this thing was flying around and strange circles and how Yeah, at least until the transponder went off and they ended up asking people for information. But I think what's really terrifying about this thing is that there is no official explanation.
There's been multiple like here's may what have happened from avionics experts, but just to underscore how bad things are, the Marine Corps has now issued a two two day quote stand down for all aviation units both inside and outside the United States after the disappearance of this F thirty five. And this actually follows a really terrible accident that just happened a couple of days ago where three US Marines were killed in Australia and were retrieved from
a crash site in Darwin, Australia, and same thing. It was a Marine V twenty two b ospre. There were twenty three marines that were on board and they crash in the middle of a tropical forest on an island while taking part in an exercise. So this is the second, basically in the span of what like almost twenty days of a terrible aviation accident within the US Marine Corps
and stand down. I mean, it's not unprecedented, but it's certainly like a major safety event, and the entire purpose of the standdown is to tell troops like to underscore safety procedures. But I have to be honest, I think something else is going on here.
I mean this entire thing.
By something else, I don't know.
I mean there could be some like a software glitch. I mean, one thing that I was reading from an avionics expert is that the F thirty five, specifically the marine I think it's like the F thirty five b U, the one that they were lying has a program inside of it that automatically ejects the pilot. So it may not have been one where he had actually hit ejection,
but before a safety procedure, it's automatically ejection. But then they're like, you know, under circumstances of which that would happen, you have to be flying in a different way than normal over where we are right now. So look, I mean, don't forget remember those Boeing crashes that happened.
Back to back.
That was a software issue in a training issue, right, that wasn't properly presented.
So I think there's actually a lot going on here.
Eighty million dollar aircraft aren't just supposed to fall out of the sky pilots and then not be able to be found.
Well, there's big questions about what happened with the transponder, because that's why this was so apparently difficult to locate, like you would normally be able to track this thing all the way. And so one of the question marks is, okay, well was that functioning properly because you and I both kind of assumed it must have crashed into the ocean for them to be having so much difficulty locating the debris. But lo and behold, it's there close to where the
pilot was ejected. So yeah, a lot of question marks here. They said the stand down is needed to ensure the service is maintained operational standardization of combat ready aircraft with well prepared pilots and crews, whatever that means. So it was it an aircraft issue. Was it a pilot issue, Was it a training issue, was it a software issue? Still a lot of questions.
Absolutely, that's a question, and we really shouldn't take our off the ball. As we all just said, we spent one point seven trillion dollars on the F thirty five program, all to be able to not be able to find the jet after the pilot is ejected, and especially not find it when it turns out it was right near the ejection site the whole time. So I guess just thank god it didn't kill anybody, you know, whenever it crashed or destroyed the pilot.
With the debris.
Yeah, so right, we lucked out real, you know, we lucked out hardcore the fact that this wasn't way worse. So there's still a lot of questions the Marine Corps has to answer. Don't think they're going to be all that forthcoming though.
Okay.
Ukraine, So there's a lot going on today here in Washington. President Zelenski of Ukraine is in New York City for the UN General Assembly, and we're visiting here in Washington. He'll be meeting with all one hundred Senators and with some members of the House Leadership team We're going to get to that in a little bit, but as a part of his visit, Low and Behold, he only seems to come here whenever he wants more money. So let's go and put this up there on the screen in
typical fashion. The New York Times got a preview of his remarks that it will be delivering to Congress after he addressed that joint session last time. Quote in the US Zelenski will make the case for more aid and to offer thanks. But this time around he is meeting a very different Washington and a much more skeptical Washington as to whether they want to provide him that money. As we're going to get to part of it comes to concerns over the way that Ukraine is not only
using our aid but to the best effect. Are they actually able in order to accomplish any of the goals from their counter offensive? And then second like are they
going to use our weapons to strike Russia? And that is a very important question considering that while President Zelenski was here, he sat for an interview with sixty Minutes in which he blatantly lied about striking Russian territory and didn't even get called out in the interview, and he was also pressed about what the parameters of peace field may look like.
Let's take a listen to some of that.
The drone strikes in Russia are being done on your orders? No, not on your orderly?
Well, you know how is this happening?
You know we don't shoot at the territory of the Russian Federation. We decided to try the question another way. What message is being sent with these drone strikes in Russia?
Was not at the ducks?
You do know that we use our partner's weapons on the territory of Ukraine only, and this is true, but these are not punitive operations such as they carry out killing civilians. But Russia needs to know that wherever it is, whichever place they use for launching missiles to strike Ukraine, Ukraine has every moral right to send a response to those places. We are responding to them saying your sky is not as well protected as you think. Can you give up any part of Ukraine for peace?
Me?
No, this is our territory. You must have it all, including crimea.
She would you vama of women? You put because.
Today you and I you said it to me. You saw me awarding people medals. Well, today is a day like that. A week ago, I gave awards to parents of soldiers who have been killed. It's a difficult job, you understand me, right, giving awards to people whose faces show their whole world has collapsed and all I can give them all I can give them.
That's a Buttom wall is victory.
And so that's the declarative line from President Zelenski here in Washington Crystal.
But I think the most galling part of it.
Is that the very beginning, when he's basically smirking and he's like, you know that we don't use those and we would never use our partner's weapons. I'm like, well, if you're gonna lie in the one part, why would we believe you on the second part. It's always a
consistent question that we have for the president. And also there's a lot of performative anti corruption stuff happening right now in Ukraine, because Ukraine, I think can read and knows that people in America and across the world are getting concerned about the vast amount of graft and corruption and what was previously acknowledged is one of the most corrupt nations literally in the entire Western world. And so a new purge is happening inside of the Defense Ministry.
Let's put this up there on the screen. Right before the visit, without explanation, seven ministers in the US Defense Ministry or sorry, in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry were fired right ahead of the trip to the UN General Assembly. That came after the actual State Secretary for the Defense Ministry had previously been let go, and then all of us were allowed to, at least for once, acknowledge graft
and correct inside Ukraine. My personal favorite line from that was that prior to the war that was happening, that corruption and oligarchs would focus on grifting off of the state. But now that so much money is flowing in from the West that is now.
The primary source of revenue.
The number is probably in the untold billions, if not tens of billions that have been siphoned off from Western eed. Of course, no curiosity I'm here in Washington about that. But he's trying to make a show of this crystal while actively asking for twenty five billion more before the Congress. But this time around, as I said, the political dynamics are very different.
And listen, Zelensky is not a stupid person. He can read the polls here, he can see the public support ebbing away from providing additional support to Ukraine. He can see the political t leaves as well that certainly, especially within the Republican caucus, there's increasing skepticism towards the direction
of just sort of sending endless aid. And so while he's still coming here to make his ask, he is changing his tone, both from feedback, you know, from the US and irritation from politicians here, but also from the Europeans, the fact that it was always like, you need to do more. In fact, one of the Ukrainian excuses for why the counter offensive hasn't gone better is they claim it's our fault because we didn't provide them with weapons, that everything that they wanted as quickly as possible. So
he's changed his tone. He's, you know, trying to lead with thank you, We're so grateful, but also here's our
needs going forward. And I think also another thing that he's reading here is even though it's kind of extraordinary that he's caught in a lie directly when this question gets asked about, like, hey, these strikes are happening under your orders, and he's like, no, we don't do that, and then one minute later he's admitting that they do do strikes in US, but it's only, you know, to show them that their skis are not as well protected as they think, and it's definitely not with any of
our partner's weaponry. So he's immediately caught in this lie. But even the fact that that question was even asked is a shift in terms of the media's tone. There's at least like one iota of skepticism, and so you know, the display of I'm going to fire all these deputy defense ministers, I'm going to change my tone as I come here. I think it's all a sign that he realizes the political landscape has really significantly shifted.
Absolutely.
And another way that it has shifted, in my opinion, is that the Biden administration is actually trying to manage being giving Ukraine everything that it wants without also getting the headlines while he's here.
So let's put this up there on the screen.
This was surreptitiously leaked that the US is planning not to announce the long range missiles decision during the Zelenski visit, even though the decision has basically been made. As again, these are the Army tactical missile systems, surface to surface guided missile systems with a range of one hundred ninety miles that the Biden administration repeatedly or reportedly has said
that they are willing to provide to Ukraine. And the reason why we have not been doing that up until this point is for the exact reason that himself is lying about not striking Russian territory. We're afraid that they're going to do it, and they're going to escalate the war even further by striking very strategic Russian assets directly with provided US long range missile systems with the Russians.
Two have been warning about.
The most important thing to remember all of this is why should we trust you? Why should we trust that you're not going to be using this? And also why should we trust that this is going to make some critical difference crystal in the counter offensive.
If you look at any map of.
Reclaimed Ukrainian territory, if you zoom out for the entire country, it is effectively negligible.
You can't see anything.
Every day they try and justify the tens of billions of dollars that were providing them with Oh, we took this small village, or we took this, there's no major breakthrough. It's like, oh, we've pierced the first line of defense. It's like going back to the First World War and being like, well, we took one out of thirty of the lines of defense, so the Battle of the Somme.
Was a victory.
It's like, one hundred years later, what do we all acknowledge was a senseless waste of bloodshed and not a single thing was accomplished on the battlefield. It's like the same si op that's being run again and again to justify not only propaganda, but in this case, it's not even their money or weapons that they're spending here, it's ours that they're trying to take from our you know, from taxpayers and convince lawmakers.
I mean, I can't blame him. That comes directly from us. That comes directly from our enabling and not laying any sort of a realistic or practical direction in terms of ending this conflict. I mean, that's the piece that I just keep coming back to, Like, I support the Ukrainians. I think that this war from Russia was illegal and unjustified. I think that it has created untold amounts of suffering, death, et cetera. But what is the end game? How do
we get from here to there? Especially when so much I know now they're sort of downblaying it, but so much was really pinned on this calendar offensive. We just do these packages now and we support them here they'll be able to strengthen their position and then maybe they can come to the negotiating table. That didn't happen. So
what now? What is the next plan? I think we've gotten a preview of that with you know, there was that up ed in the Financial Times of General saying basically, well they can't win now maybe in twenty twenty five. They're really laying the groundwork for a sort of endless status quo of continuing to send this aid with no real end in sight. I think from for Biden politically, he's just hoping that kind of the status quill maintains and this remains a back burner issue in terms of
the perception of the American public through election day. We'll see if that happens or not. But they really owe at this point, given the failure of the counter offensive, they really owe the American people an explanation of how this is all going to come to a close.
And I would point back to, you know, our interview with Rocana. I said, look, you know you're going to vote for twenty five billion. I said, nine months from now, when we have the same situation, you and I are going to be sitting here and what are you going to say to me? And he's like, well, we can't be providing endless war. And I said, okay, well then what should it look like? And he's like, well, Russia needs to pull out. And I'm like, well, they're not
going to do that. Why do you think they're going to do that nine months from now after fighting? And he's like, well, when they need to pull out, I'm like, well, it's like we're in a total here. It's like there's it's like an endless circle of reasoning. And as you said, look, I don't take any glee in this. I think it's
horrible what's happened to Ukraine. I feel terrible for them, But that again does not mean that the entire burden should fall on us, and we should continue to compromise our national security for defense stores and weapons even with these missiles. I mentioned previously one of the reasons the Pentagon had ruled it out. Is They're like, we don't have enough of these, and if we need them in a future conflict, you know, we would compromise our own
national security. There's no reason to think that that hasn't changed. We have major production timelines. So anyway, all of this is also happening on the heels of some pretty major machinations inside of Congress that directly concern Ukraine aid and whether we're going to have a government shutdown. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. This was reported by Playbook yesterday kind of the internal DC newsletter for the inside Congress, and here's what they said. Quote
one senior GOP lawmaker told Playbook that is crazy. We do not have the votes in the Republican Conference to do any Ukraine funding. One thing that they note is that McCarthy will host a meeting with President Zelenski, but it will not be a one on one meeting, and it will be with multiple other leaders from the House representatives, including chairmen and ranking members, with no one on one.
Also noteworthy, on the Senate side, all one hundred senators are attending a meeting with President Zelenski, but on the House side that is not happening. There also is a pretty major push coming from MAGA influencers and other conservative influencers to lead a charge against funding for Ukraine in Congress. One reason I think that's significant is we did a whole story here yesterday about how Ken Paxton was effectively saved by a MAGA influence campaign. So you can't underestimate
how powerful some of these people are. One of them is Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA. Just giving people a taste of some of the stuff that's out there, he writes, Zelenzi's coming to DC next week to bully the American publican too, writing another twenty four billion check
to a quagmire. He's coming here days after his English, transgender English spokesperson threatened to hunt down and kill anti Ukraine critics and propagandas he's doing this after threatening his European allies and millions of refugees across the EU will start terrorizing their nations if he doesn't receive perpetual financing of the war.
The American public.
Must stop being exported by a foreign gangster, not one more dime. So, whether you agree or disagree, that is a flavor of what is coming from one of the
activist parts of the GOP. You see it definitely represented in the voices of people like Matt Gates and Marjorie Taylor Green and several others, but you also see it Representative Dan Bishop and others from the Freedom Caucus who are refusing to include in any continuing resolution to fund the government any of this Ukraine Aid and the Disaster Aid also that President Biden tried to put together, setting us up for a major showdown with the Senate and
the President who both say that it's not negotiable. Any increased funding of the government has to come with Ukraine Aid.
Especially to have this fight.
It's an insult to Zelensky to do it while here's here in Washington.
That's why we have to pass it right now.
And I just don't think that's very likely right now, Crystal, with all the fights that are happening.
The reason that the Ukraine Aid and the so called continuing Resolution, which is just basically like a budget patch so that the government doesn't shut down, the idea had been to attach those things together. This was sort of McCarthy's idea too, and pass them both through simultaneously, to try to keep everyone together on these things. And we are days away at this point from a possible shutdown. It's an October one deadline. There had been a tentative
deal just among the House Republican caucus. We're not even talking about the Senate. We're not even talking about what the president wants, but just to get it through the House with Republican votes. There had been a tentative deal between the House Freedom Caucus, some members of the House Freedom Caucus, and some of the more moderate members of
that caucus. But that deal instantly when it was announced, was comp completely obliterated and shot down, primarily by other members of the House Freedom Caucus who did not agree with the person who had been negotiating it. So even the original idea was okay, well, that might be able to get through the House, but it's probably not going to get through the Senate, which is still controlled by Democrats. Even the idea that was going to get through the
House has now fallen apart. And so that's how these things are tied together. Because the idea had been to put the aid along with the Continuing Resolution and pass them as one. Well, now there is really no sort of clear endgame in sight in terms of getting this government funding through. So another government shut down game of chicken here looms. Kevin McCarthy, his speakership potentially in danger.
Matt Gates in particularly making a lot of noise. I would say that those are kind of empty threats because they still don't have a real alternative to McCarthy. But you'll remember, as part of his speakership deal made it very easy for this vote to be brought up to remove him from the speakership. So he's running scared. There's a lot going on there. It's very ugly. I mean, he was like cursing at the caucus, yelling at them, and Gates is coming back at him. So it's a
total mess over there. And this Ukraine Aid funding is caught up in the whole situation.
You know, and McCarthy won't even commit to passing any Ukraine aid. So he was asked about this late last night. They said, will you expect this aid to eventually pass? He says, quote, I think we will look through it. But the one thing I think the House is very concerned about is what's happening right now in America. He was also asked why the entire House Republican Conference is not meeting with Zelensky unlike the Senate. He said, well, they can run things their way.
We run it our way.
If he wants to meet with other people, he can meet with them if he wants to.
So, I mean, all signs.
Point to no confidence within the GOP confidence that any of this Ukraine aid will be able to pass. It also raises a question will the Senate and the President shut the government down over Ukraine aid and disaster relief, because there's two ways it could go. If the GOP puts through a continuing resolution which includes Ukraine aid, but then is about federal spending, I think that the Democrats and the President would win because it would be like, oh, they're trying to cut food stamps or.
Something like that.
But if they are, if the government is shut down over not funding Ukraine, and then you know the cynical ploy of pairing it with funding for like Maui and for Hawaiian disaster relief, I think that's a whole other conversation as to whether you're literally going to shut down the United States government over not funding Ukraine.
But those aren't the contours right now, because even the proposed deal from that has now fallen part with the Republican Caucus called for like eight percent cuts to everything except of course, defense spending, because we can't touch that, Lord God forbid. So it was going after things like food stamps and other programs that are really critical to people, given how tough the economy is for a lot of ordinary Americans. So anyway, there's a lot of pieces here.
I have no predictions about how this is all going to work out, but it's hard to see how they're going to navigate through these next few days without some sort of a shutdown situation, given again that even the House Republican Caucus cannot agree on what they want to do with this situation. Last thing I'll say on the Ukraine aid is if you just pulled if you just asked members of the House Democrats and Republicans do they support the aid, you'd have an overwhelming jory. The issue
comes in because it's still a minority. You have a majority of regular Republicans in the country who are against additional aid, but it's still a minority even in the House Republican Caucus that want to block all aid going forward. The problem is when you tie these things together and you get it into these sort of negotiations. Democrats are not going to help House Republicans pass like this deal
that they're trying to come to together within themselves. So that's where this all gets really complicated and very dicey.
Yeah, very well said Okay.
At the same time, of course, we have been tracking very closely here the ongoing United Autoworker strike of the Big Three. As we've been discussing. This happened last week. They actually went out on strike after they were unable to reach a deal with the Big Three or three. They are target targeting all three automakers with what they're calling a stand up strike. That means they're not all going on at once. They announced three plants that are
on strike right now. I think that's about thirteen thousand of the roughly one hundred and fifty thousand UAW auto workers who are working at these Big three. So that's the direction that they're going in. We've had yesterday we covered the political response. We had Biden very clearly on the side of the workers, using their framing saying record
profits should mean record contracts. You had Trump unable to say whose side he was on when he was asked directly by Kristen Welker, are you on the side of the bosses or on you on? Are you on the side of the auto workers? However, he wants to use this moment to try to resignify his working class solidarity, even though in my opinion this has been nothing but empty words. And he also wants to use it as a cudgel against some of the push towards electric vehicles.
So let's put this up on the screen for the New York Times. This broke just yesterday. There is a second Republican debate scheduled for next week, so this is coming very soon. And instead of going to that debate, Trump is instead going to travel to Detroit and give a speech to a lot of workers and potentially union workers, again in an attempt to sort of tacitly signal his support for auto workers, even as he hasn't explicitly backed
their wage and other demands. According to The New York Times, it also says the campaign is considering the possibility of having mister Trump make an appearance at the picket line, although the advisor said such a visit is unlikely. So this is the play that he is making and part of it, Sager is trying to signal his support for workers without actually taking explicit stance in favor of their demands. Part of it is trying to hit Biden over EVS
and the electric vehicle transition. And part of it is also to signal to Republicans that listen, this whole primary situation that you all are playing at this is over. I'm focused on the next one.
That's actually the one that I take at most.
He's like, I'm playing for the general, I'm playing for Michigan, I'm playing to win, and it's actually a smart play on literally all sides. As he said, I mean, Trump won a decent portion of the union vote in twenty sixteen and in twenty twenty, not an outright majority, but enough in order to make some Democrats scared. Obviously a lot of worker auto workers in particular back to him in twenty sixteen because of some of the claims he made,
some of them didn't end up being true. Whenever it came to GM plants and all of that.
I wonder how people in Lordstown how that went.
I wonder Crystal though, if he will reverse and actually would come out of the side because.
Outright joining a picket line. I mean, you tell me.
I mean that seems like an outright declaration of support, like if you were going to do he hasn't done that. We'll see, you know what the actual thing comes down to. I will I would just take note that, you know, politically savvy is Trump like?
Right?
Yesterday Tim Scott was on Capitol Hill. He was asked about the auto strike. He says, quote, I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike.
He said, you strike, you're fired. Pretty simple concept to me.
So, I mean, that is what the other side of the GOP looks like.
And it is just.
Funny because similar and said the same thing Sody Nikki Hailey as well. They were actually really understand is South Carolina like that not? You know, I feel like there's a lot of working classes.
And their very right to work there. They're very highways there, and they have a number of they've got a big non union BMW plant there, et cetera. So though it's like kind of.
Baked, it makes sense.
But the point my thing was is I'm looking at that and then you see Trump and you're like, oh, well, that's why it even was able to win, you know, off rhetoric alone in twenty sixteen. So I think it's a very politically savvy move, as you said. And the other thing that I think is smart is this time
it's a primetime speech. It's an actual speech where the networks are going to have to choose which one they're going to have to cover, as opposed to the Tucker interview that dropped on Twitter, where the clips, let's be honest, they just weren't widely circulated. Yeah, what they wanted did not occur, which is that for to Upstate in terms
of viewership. Now, you know, you can say all you want about numbers and all that, maybe you know some of it in terms of regular viewers, but I think what Trump cares about and has always cared about the most, is the ability to dominate the actual conversation.
And he did not do that.
He did not do there's no question.
I mean, we even saw we saw a tremendous interest from a general purpose audience on our show for the GOP primary, and I spoken to people in media. It surpassed all expectations across several outlets, So there was no you know, there's no ambiguity here as that people were interested. And if he wants to continue to not show up to the debates, then he wants to have to try
and dominate some of these airwaves. And I think this actually is a smarter play by actually forcing them to choose what they're going to cover and not and then possibly even getting them to ask questions about it whatever he's saying in said speech, Like tonight President Trump is at the UAW or is talking to UAW workers where do you stay? So in a reactive sense to get the moderators to ask about it.
I mean, I would certainly think and hope that the autoworker strike is a topic of conversation in the debate. I think it would be with Trump or no Trump. I think it'd be real shame for that to not be brought up. And see what these candidates have to say, even as I mean, yeah, the writing is kind of while at this point, Trump has really pulled away. The first debate didn't do much in terms of moving the needle.
If anything, in some ways it strengthened his position because you had NICKI Haley coming up a little bit, taking a little bit down around Desant is kind of eating into his position. No one else broke out of the pack to really consolidate like one potential Trump alternative candidate
that just benefits him. I'm a little skeptical that he'll really be able to successfully counter program any of these debates just because they are such a big seminal event and they contain so much you know, theater and spectacle that people really enjoy that combat and to you know, see these candidates head to head, et cetera. So I'm not sure how much he'll be able to break through in terms of forcing this choice. And it's not like the media is like super excited about covering strikes and
economic issues anyway. One piece on his writer, I mean, we debated the ev piece yesterday, so you guys can go back and watch that. But one thing about his rhetoric that really bugs the hell out of me, and that I also think is totally off base with the actual workers who are involved in this strike, is he keeps attacking Sean Fain, yes, without seemingly realizing that this guy is brand new, that he was just elected by
these members, that they are very wholeheartedly behind him. I mean, we you know, have Jordan Sheridan on the ground there from Status co talking to the workers. They are very much with him and with his approach and all on board with this strike. So all of his crap that's really typical like Republican union busting kind of language about like the union bosses and you should quit the union and form a new union and all of this kind
of nonsense. I think it's very off base and displays a lack of understanding about what has actually been going on for these workers inside of the autoworkers.
I don't think anyone is a very accused Trump of being the details guy.
I think he's probably yeah.
I mean, as you said, I think he's probably stuck in the previous frame of mind, which was correct, is that you know these union didn't the previous leader didn't you get fun think he might have gone to jail or he was charged or something like that.
There was previous leadership, not the present, but there were there were leaders of the union who yes had charges against them. And the message that Fane ran On was not only being more militant with regard to these Big Three, but the idea that the previous leadership was too cozy with the bosses and that went out and it was extraordinary. They also just changed the way that those elections even happened, so that it was a much more democratic vote and
actually represented the desires of the rank and file. So this part he either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand or whatever. But you know, I continue to think because his message is on this is kind of convoluted. It's all like he'll dodge when asked like whose side are you act on? But then has you know, this lengthy thing about EV's and China and Biden and inflation and the union leadership, et cetera. I do think Biden's message on this is much more clear cut about wages,
about yeah, just yes, I stand with the workers. They deserve a better way. I mean, that's just much easier to understand, and there's a much more direct line between like, oh, these companies are making record profits, they're extremely greedy, they're screwing their workers. On on the side of the workers, that's it, end of story. Whereas Trump and the Republicans thing is this like attempt at jiu jitsu to not really take a side but then use it to bash Biden,
et cetera. And I just don't think it's as clear cut of a direct message from them.
I don't disagree.
And that's actually how I wonder whether he's going to change tactics and whether he especially a picket line appearance and all that, if he's asked about the wages and in the story.
I mean, if he showed up in the picket line, that would really be something extraordinary.
Yeah, I mean, it'd be a great thing to have two presidents, both the opponents in the in the race, endorsing like wage demands.
I can't that's bipartisanship. Yeah, we've always desired here, right.
And then but I mean, and then you see like his National Labor Relations Board in the way that he just chocked it full of I mean, he's been a union buster his entire even in his business career, so it's also dissonant with what his record was. But even the symbology of him and Biden, if he were to show up at the picket line, if he were to change his rhetoric, these are all big ifs at this point. You know, that would be a lot of pressure on these auto exacts.
So we got to be watched. Yeah, let's watch it. Closely.
I mean, I think it would be an extraordinary moment if something like that happened.
I mean, don't forget.
You know, we've had a couple of moments like this which have showed us like how corrupt the system is. Trump and Biden have endorsed the JD Vance Shared Brown Rail Safety Bill. It's one of the only bills in all in the entire modern Congress that has ever been endorsed by the two sitting leaders of their party. And it still has been unable to pass because of a railway interests on the GOP side, which I think tells you a lot about some of those Senators and some
of those House of Representatives people are. But the point is that's very rare for stuff like that to happen. Now, look, it hasn't passed, but you know, it's like one or two votes, I think away from passage.
So if they were, as you said, if.
Trump were to join the picket line, and again it's a big if, if you were to declare some sort of support the autoworkers can't be or the auto the bosses can't be, Like, man, maybe we should wait this out, you know, because that could very much be on their minds too, about changing Washington, change in regulatory regime. So it could definitely actually put even more pressure on them if it were to happen.
It would be interesting.
Yeah, you know, the thing with Trump is he'll do all of this symbolic stuff. You know, especially if you go back to twenty sixteen, like the things he was saying versus how he governed. You know, I did a thing on like what happened with Lordstown. He went there and was like, don't sell your homes, you know, in Youngstown, like don't sell your homes or bringing it back. Of course that all fell apart. So he'll do all the symbolic stuff. However, I will say in a moment like this,
when you have a strike. And this is why it was heartened by Biden's rhetoric, that sort of rhetoric coming from very prominent officials or the President of the United States, you're talking about a handful of auto executives who are making these decisions about how this is going to go forward. And so in that instance, the bully pulpit actually really does matter. And the other place where it has mattered is we have never in my lifetime had higher public
support for unions and striking workers. And so even though Trump was a union buster as you know, a business person and as a president, the fact that his rhetoric was different on unions I think opened up a possibility for the public, including Republicans, to be at least tacitly in support of union power because you know, they didn't see the slide of hand that like always saying this,
but then really what he's doing is union busting. So anyway, it's it will be fascinating to watch how all of this.
It'll be fun. It'll be fun.
At the same time, we continue to have a lot going on over at CNBC, which I'm enjoying watching very much. Jim Kramer has long been freaking out about Sean Fain and the auto workers, et cetera, et cetera, which I've been eating up. But CNBC hosted a very interesting debate between a former National Labor Relationsport official who was backing the workers in their demands and a Chamber of Commerce official who was very much on the other side of this. Let's take a listen.
To some of that.
But you point out about the booming profits, and my question is, you know, past performance is no guarantee of the future. Do you think the outlook is bright for the Big three for booming process to continue from here on.
Well, I certainly think that the outlook will be brighter if the companies treat their workers in a way that's fair. And there are a lot of variables that will determine the future of the auto sector. You know, let's remember that labor costs are actually a very small part of these companies' costs. When as you as you were talunted, the union did make great concessions to save this industry. The companies have increased CEO pay at a very rapid rate.
They have given out billions of dollars in stock buybacks.
It would be one thing if the focus were talking about how we share in the future growth and profit of the auto makers. But listen, the UAW is looking for forty percent pay raise. They want workers to be paid for five days when they only work for four. They want to return to define benefit pension systems. That is a recipe to put these companies into bankruptcy, and that serves you no one interest. I think the question we have to ask is why do they feel so emboldened?
This actually isn't the first time we've seen demands like this. It's been the summer of strikes, and this is a bit of a pattern, and unfortunately, I think it's being fueled in part by the Biden administration and this push for unionization at all costs.
And not hearing a lot of concern about increasing CEO pay, increasing stock buybox.
But that's just optics.
If you if you take for twenty or twenty five or thirty million, that's that's deminimous for what we're talking about at the success of the coming. Maybe optically it looks bad and you know, it's the politics of envy and everything else, but you take a defined benefit to put that back in thirty two hour work week, a forty percent pay raise. I mean the CEO issue, that's that's just a talking point.
Why is it a talking point? I mean, he got paid that amount of money. Is it yet? Is true or is it not? The entire thing is just absolutely ridiculous.
I also like the way the Chamber of Commerce guy is accidently done only making the Biden administration sound really great. It's like, why it's the summer of strikes. I think Joe Biden has a lot to do with it, like he's encouraging unionization at all costs. I mean, listen, I support some of whi's been done by this administration, but I would not frame it in quite that way. But but yeah, I love that he's because you have to even I mean, the CNBC's audience is a different kind
of animal. But in terms of general public, seventy five percent of people support this strike, record breaking numbers of people support unions. So when they hear like, oh, the summer of strikes and it's Joe Biden's because of Joe Biden and his policies, I don't think that that's landing quite the way that he wants it to outside of the CNBC audience and the anchor there.
It's also a very unfair thing that people do. I mean, you and I know this. Whenever we host a debate or something like that. You can't just rule out some of the ground that somebody is arguing on, especially if it's I mean, if you bring up a totally irrelevant point, you could be like, okay, well.
But he's little. I mean, it's a very basic point.
It's like your pay has gone up by x amount you have paid out why amount in shareholders effectively the exact same cost of what this raise would be. So instead of producing a dividend or paying out and buying stock buybacks artificially in juice the price, why don't you use that to pay the workers more and we can make better cars and have a happier workforce and we don't have any shutdown or strike. I mean, it's that's not a talking point. That's a very basic line of argumentation.
It's why even investors and even people like Mark Cuban have been come out against stock buybacks because they're like, it's an irrelevant action that doesn't have anything to do with the actual productive capacity of the company. It's why they were even illegal for so many years in the US.
It's just financial engineering, and it's just like a kickback to your executives. Two executives who, thanks to a Clinton era loophole, like their compensation is largely in stock so that they don't have to pay taxes on it, again thanks to a Clinton era loophole. So that's how all of that works. But he also the anchor made this point at the beginning, like, oh, what you think you
think the Big three are going to do? Fine with profits and you think past performance is indicative of future performance. It's like you could always use that, you could use us as an excuse also to not pay the CEO, Like, oh, what you think that because things have been going well, you think things are just going to continue to go well. These workers have a track record that they can point
to of when things were bad for the automakers. Guess what, they took a huge haircut, they took layoffs, they took a big hit to their pensions, they got rid of cost of living increases. And that's why these demands now seemed so large. It's because they have been so screwed and set back over years. And of course at the time, the thought was, all right, you guys, bail us out now, and that's what it was. It was a worker funded
bailout of these auto companies and their executives. You guys, bail us out now, and we got you in the future when we return to profitability. That never happened. And so for them to then turn around and say, oh, what you think now that they're profitable, they're just always going to be profitable forever is such incredible garbage. But yeah, I love to see the Chamber of Commerce guy trying to spin this, and I mean even on CNBC his points look pretty weak.
Yeah.
Absolutely, it was a very foolish moment, I think for all of them.
Indeed, all right, let's talk about housing.
This is always so important and one that we're always trying to keep an eye on. And it's one of the chief reasons why despite the fact that people like Paul Krugman and are always like, oh, the economy, we're making one of the mooset stunning recoveries.
Ever, and then inflation hit.
Numbers come out literally the next day showing that gas is reaching nearly completely unaffordable heights, that grocery prices and all of that remain flat and very high over the last couple of years.
Well, this is probably the core.
It all comes back to cost of living and housing and housing and shelter with being a key driver inflation over the last couple of years. Let's put this up there on the screen where even the financial papers are beginning to take notice. They say, Americans can barely afford homes and that's a problem for Biden. Quote, housing affordability
has declined to the lowest level on record. But what I thought that they did a great job of was not just talking about it on the macro number, but zooming in on a state like Wisconsin, where as they accurately point out, they can show you very clearly that in the city of Milwaukee, in the swing state of Wisconsin, you have a huge drop in overall housing affordability, which is making it nearly impossible to argue to the general
population there that things are going well. Their deterioration in the rental market is quote more than almost any US metro area in the year ending in July, according to the National Association of Realtors, and one of the largest
increases in mortgage burdens amongst the biggest fifty markets. Crystal, that's just the city of Milwaukee, and actually completely makes sense, and it tracks with a lot of what we talked about about how industrial Midwestern cities which have seen in some cases a slight like net migration inflow and people coming from the East and the West coast either moving back home or moving to more not rural but like second tier cities, I guess, as opposed to like the
bigger global cosmopolitan cities are driving up the overall market. You're seeing a major drop in supply, largely because interest rates are so high nobody wants to sell a major lock up.
And in a city like Milwaukee.
There's a lot of poor people who live in Milwaukee, and there's a lot of people who have to work also in the service sector as well, and they're being pushed out of the overall rental and housing economy. And whenever you find your lease expiring and then you're going out and you're looking, people are just finding complete sticker shock at both of the options that they have and having to make plans of like, yeah, maybe I got a four percent raise, my rent is up by twenty
five percent. That's coming up, and the landlord wants like first and last month's rent or something like that, So you got to cough up like huge portions of cash on top of moving costs and all. Then you're looking at a multi thousand dollars transaction that a normal single family is having to deal with.
That's the issue.
I mean, this issue is so central, and it is hanging out there as an obvious place for a politician who was savvy and wanted to actually gain some ground, because this pain is at every level of the income spectrum outside of the wealthy who are just fine houses because they have houses. But when you pull gen z the inability to buy a home, they cited that as the second largest source of their unhappiness. This is a massive issue in community after community across the country, and
you can understand why. I thought there was a really good quote in here from a political science professor who said, listen, this contributes to a general sense that the American dream is out of reach and that the Democratic Party promises a middle class American dream and it's failing. I think those voters are more likely to listen to the Republican Party. And it's not that Republicans have offered any answers on this.
They have it. But if you're supposed to be the party as the Democrats, who are representing working class and middle class interests and under your watchist Joe Biden, that ability to even aspire to the classic American dream feels like it's falling away, as it does for many many people. Guess who's going to get the blame. I mean, it's
really not rocket science. So there was a proposal in way back when they were talking about building back better to help to surge housing and help to try to improve the situation, but you really need an aggressive top to bottom approach to deal with this, because this level of housing unaffordability is just an absolute crisis and really eats at the core of our own self conception as a nation, let alone anybody's ability to feel like they
can ever have some sort of stable situation, stable middle class prosperity that they can pass forward to the case. We cover the fact, you know, for young people, for millennials trying to buy a house who are not that young at this point, they have to basically have mom and dad to write the down payment.
The vast majority of them they're able to do so, at least in an affordable market. It's in a supermarket like DC New York, and others are going to their.
Parents without payment, and so you need help for first time buyers in terms of that down payment. You need to do something about permanent capital coming in and swooping
in and buying up these neighborhoods. This has become even why it was just looking in the numbers, it's become even more of an issue in the high interest rate landscape because they're the ones who can they can pay all cash cash Yeah, So if you're coming in with an all cash offer and you've got someone else trying to scrape together figure out their mortgage situation, and it's wildly utaffordable, et cetera, Like, guess who's going to end up with those homes. This is a deliberate strategy at
this point. So you've got to help first time home buyers. You've got to do something about permanent capital. You've got to make sure you're surging housing supply and not just leaving it to whatever the developers want to build, because guess that's what guys Guess what they want to build, luxury high rises, and that is not going to benefit
the broad population that's looking for more affordable housing. So I think that this issue is so incredibly central and so wildly underestimated and under discussed in terms of our political and media.
System undred percent. You can even see it a lot in the data is put this up there. For example, this is one of the latest polls that on the economy, it's like voters feel a little bit better about the economy, but very few credit Biden. Most Americans disapprove of the president's economic policy, posing a challenge to his re election and I think it's just over and over comes back to structural factors that our media, CPI and all of
that they don't measure properly. They don't understand how disheartening it can be for people who are in that time of their lives where they feel as if they've done everything right, they follow all the right steps, and they still aren't able to. They quote and they look at several people here in the Milwaukee area who are like, yeah, the only reason I got a house is because half
of the house has not even finished. Now I got to pay more for that house, and I have to spend the next several years modeling this when previously I
could bought something which wasn't like that. And then over and over again, it's happening to people, even with families, people who thought that they were right on the cost of being able to you know, as you said, you know, if you're an elder millennial now you're looking your late thirties and early forties, and to not have the ability to buy a house is a major determination of generational wealth.
So overall, yeah, I think this is going to be one of the biggest drags you think about car prices You've got average car new car costs fifty thousand dollars and you're financing it at what seven eight percent interest rate? We know that several states have average car payments of over one thousand dollars, largely people who are buying trucks and some sucks. I mean, all of that is just not going to keep up with where the wages are right now in this country.
Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And so there's all this political class confusion of like, oh, some of the numbers are better, and why aren't people feeling it. It's really not complicated, and I do, I do genuinely think that housing affordability is such a key part of why people do not feel like this economy is working for them whatsoever. All right, we got an update for you coming out
of Hollywood. So he previously announced, based on his announcement that Bill Maher was bringing Real Time back in spite of the fact that the writer's strike in the actor strike, but with this one, the writer's strike is what's pertinent,
is still ongoing. He said, Oh, I want to the monologue, I want to do the other scripted segments, but we are going to bring it back at this point, well, after a lot of what I can only presume is a lot of public pressure and probably a lot of guests who didn't really want to join him for the panel, he has backtracked. Put this up on the screen. Here's his announcement. He says, my decision to return to work was made when it seemed nothing was happening and there
was no end in sight to the strike. Now that both sides have agreed to go back to the negotiating table, I'm going to delay the return of real time for now and hope that they can finally get this done. Sager, what do you think about this about.
THEABE, Well, I'm asking you what is he talking about? What do you mean they've agreed? What has actually changed in the last week. I think the only thing has changed is back clash and Drew Barrymore. Yeah, and look, you and I track this stuff pretty closely. I haven't seen any major shift in the negotiating posture. I mean, there have been continuing talks throughout this entire thing. It's not like there's been nothing. There hasn't been substantive movements.
So there's a lot of speculation. I'm curious what you think if I had to guess. I think it's because he couldn't book very many guests, yeah, or because he received some sort of ultimatum from the people who do work for him. He said he loved his writers previously will pay you the clip in a little bit, and they were like, Hey, if you do this, I'm never going to come work.
For you again.
The justification he gives here, I don't think has anything to do with it. I mean, I think it's very I honestly think it's very weasily like, Oh, it just happens that there was some untold breakthrough that now has completely changed my mind. I think. Closer to his actual feelings about this whole situation were revealed when he was talking on his podcast to Jim Gaffigan. Let's recall what he said before all of this unfolded.
I feel for my writers. I love my writers. I'm one of my writers. But there's a big other side to it, and a lot of people are being hurt besides them, a lot of people who don't make as much money as them.
In this.
Bipartisan world we have, where you're just in one camp or the other. There's no in between. You're either for the strike, like they're fucking Shay Guavera out there, you know, like this is Caesar Chavez. Let us picking strike or you're with Trump. You know, like there's no different, there's only two camps, and it's much more complicated than that.
What I find objectionable about the philosophy of the strike, it seems to be they have really morphed a long way from two thousand and seven strike, where they kind of believe that you're owed a living as a writer and you're not. This is show business, This is a make or mis league.
They kind of believe you're owed a living as a writer and you're not. And so the original his original justification for why he was going back to the show was all framed very altruistically, like, oh, I'm looking out for the other members of the show staff, etc.
Etc.
But I think this is truer to his real thoughts on that.
It's absolutely true to his thoughts. And we talked about this previously about what he means. I mean, look, yes, if you're an aspiring writer, sure you're not you know, owed a living. But if you're a professional writer in the game who is attached to a show that is making money, well, yeah, I think that you are o living as a writer, and I think that's what the entire strike is about. It's also about preserving said ability to continue to make a living in the future, to
make sure that that doesn't go away. But I don't really know, you know at this point how it's going to end. I mean, look, I think it's a good thing that he didn't do it, especially, as I said at the time, his entire justification. He's like, the essence of the show is discussion. I'm like, well, dude, you're still doing a podcast. He got Tarantino on, you got Jim Gaffigan on. It's like, you can still do everything you want to do. As I understand it. HBO even
pays him to do Club Random. So like, I don't think he's losing any money, you know, from do it, or at least he's not going completely broke as a result of this. Maybe hire him on your Club Random podcast. There's a lot of cameras in there for some reason. My point is just that you can continue to make things work and have your voice out there.
At the time, I speculated.
I was like, maybe he really wants his voice heard in the middle of the election, season, which I guess I could understand. But again, when you have the ability to continue to go on podcasts and do all this tour, he could probably do stand up and so many of these other things.
I just don't see why, like there's no point to.
Coming back to the show other than just directly, you know, disregarding some of those claims. Another reason why is he's actually a member of the Writer's Skill Yes, so it's one of those where it's like, unlike Drew Barrymore, he literally is a member of the WGA, So for him to go back is a totally in violation of his own membership of the union.
It certainly seemed that way. It certainly would seem that way. Yeah, if I had to guess what happened here, I do think that there was probably like elite level pushback that got through to him where they probably started the process of like reaching out to gas and seeing who they're going to get on the panel. And I'm sure there are plenty of you know, Republicans who don't support unions who were willing to come on, but they try to balance out the panel and have a diversity of viewpoints
every single show. And I guarantee you every probably every Democrat or Liberal that they were reaching out to, was like, no, I'm not going to be the one who goes out there and takes this heat from crossing a picket line. So I don't doubt that that's the case. I'm sure he has other friends that are in the WGA that were probably like, dude, what the hell. I don't know what his own staff was saying to him or how they felt about it, so that could have been a
factor as well. But then I also think watching what happened with Drew Barrymore and then the level of pushback he himself was getting directly from the public. When again, you know, we looked at the numbers yesterday. I think it's seventy two percent of the public supports the writers and only nineteen percent are on the side of the studio sects. And you basically by bringing your show back, you're you are taking the side of the studio execs.
Like whether you however you want to frame in your head, that's the reality of what you're doing. And so I also think, you know, this is an instance where like online public bullying, shame pressure, et cetera. Worked out in the correct direction.
I've never done the show you have. Who are the audience members? Are they from LA?
Are they not?
Like?
Who are they exactly?
I don't know.
Okay, because that's another thing I was thinking because of Drew Barrymore show. She was searching people's bags for wgah.
Yeah, I'm like, maybe they weren't even able to get audience or they were afraid that they were.
That could be I mean, I do think my assumption is that the audience is just yeah, drawn from people locally who you know, probably wait in some line to get a ticket or whatever. But I don't really know the details of how that all works out. But yeah,
that could have been an issue as well. I think probably just the public heat and public pressure was too overwhelming, and we saw some other shows like I think that showed the talk they had originally announced they're coming back, and I think they also caved and back down because they none of these people wanted to, you know, end up like Drew Barrymore weeping and panicking and whatever was going on with her. So I think that's probably the
bottom line. Okay, all right, we've got an extraordinary clip here who wanted to share with you from MSNBC A lot of elite conversation right now about like we want Joe Biden to drop on or at the very least, you should switch out the ticket and put somebody else in there for Kamala Harris, which by the way, is
not happening. But nevertheless, host Jonathan cape Hart over there ATMSNBC asked if really there was something else going on here with the criticismicism of Kamala Harris, not the fact that she has extraordinarily low approval rating and an even worse candidate than Joe Biden for the general election. Know, there must be something else going on here. Take a listen to his explanation to.
Your point, the criticisms of the vice president have been coming at her since she was picked by Joe Biden to be his running mate. My question is are they doing it not because they think she's incompetent, but because they know her potential and they're afraid of her.
Well, you know, I think you know because the vice president is in a historic role. A lot of times, you have a political press that is frankly white and male, and that is used to covering politicians that don't look like Vice President Harris and so this is leadership that is kind of hard for them to necessarily understand. This is not the vice president's role, is not something that traditionally.
We have paid a lot of attention too.
And yet because she is somebody that is doing this for the first time, that's somebody who is a black woman, we are that judge drop and increased scrutiny, I think to the role. And frankly, even you know, black voters have told me they wanted to see more of her. They wanted to see what she was doing, no matter.
What that was.
And so I think you've increasingly seen her showing up and doing the job. She's been more visible, You've seen her kind of honing her message, and so I think that is drawing more attention to her, especially as we had in the twenty twenty four.
I think her response there is funny because even she can't be like, yeah, that's totally.
She just pulls out the race card instead, because obviously that's something.
But it was a tacit admission of like, no, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think the issue is that they're like actually secretly afraid of her. I don't think that's it.
We have the data she's the least popular vice president in modern history, more so than Dan Quayle. That actually takes scale. And yeah, my guess is is not because she's black. I think she's a terrible politician. It's very simple, especially because we know that if you want to just play it purely on race, all of that would have applied to Barack Hussein Obama whenever he was the President of the United States.
He got reelected folks.
Sorry, especially Also, we're talking about Democratic voters too, who don't want her to run, and they prefer Joe Biden. So it's facetious and ridiculous on its face, the entire criticism, but it is also with the most ridiculous excuse to say, oh, it's because they are afraid of her.
No, she is not talented.
I mean, it's not just us who're saying that the Democratic leadership themselves won't even endorse her. We played that clip of Nancy Pelosi.
You know, I don't know if you saw this.
Immediately after that, Jamie Raskin was asked three separate times on MSNBC, will you support Vice President Harris for Vice president? He's like, well, that's what the president's decision is and he's like, no.
No, no, do you think this is a good choice? He's like, this is the president. These people are dumb, you know, I mean.
And also there's a you know thing in Washington where if you can say it and get away with it, then you have no power. Like if she had any power here and political power or even electoral power. Her chief of staff calls up that chief and be like, who do you think you are like talking this way? You're going to issue a public apology and all of that right now, And if they have any juice, they
will whenever you step out of line. So that the fact that everyone can get away with it and then Gavin Newsoen can upstage her consistently and then again not face any real pushback in the actual coalition where it matters, only shows us once again that she has such limited power as a result of her own lack of skills. She's got nobody to blame but herself, you know, for making a fool out of herself for the last couple of years.
So Gavin actually just did an in area. I was looking for the specific quote where he was asked directly about Kamala Harris and he was on the talking points like absolutely, she's the best. And he was also asked about Biden's age and he's like, I want to seize the throw and there he's on the talking points. Man, he knows exactly what he's doing in all of this because he also is like, you know, wants to make
sure that they don't continue. Well, he actually loves these articles that are like, oh, actually Gavin Newsom is angling for twenty twenty four for future presidential run. But he can't give any sort of actual nod to that because you know, it will endanger his political position within the Democratic Party. So he was on the messaging, you know,
for what it's worth. But yeah, lots of Democratic politicians, including Nancy Pelosi fellow California, who cannot just come out and say, yes, I think Kamala Harris would be a great president and is the best person to be vice president, because it is it's difficult to argue that. And I also would just remind Kamala Harrison was in the Democratic primary.
Yes time around.
She didn't do well. She didn't do well with any type of voter, no matter what demographic you looked at, she didn't do well. She had to drop out before the voting even you know, began in her home state because there was so much concern about how she would fare. Her proof of rating is lower, consistently lower than Biden's. She fares in terms of head to head matchup. She consistently fares more poorly against Trump or any other Republican
than Joe Biden does. So I don't think the issue is that they're actually secretly afraid of Yeah, that's right there, you're throwing that out there.
It's also not the pressest fault that you're bad at your job.
But of course that's a very convenient explanation, Crystal, what do you take.
A look at well.
In a recent trove of documents called the Pandora Papers was released revealing how the world deleite hid their many millions, the countrymen of one nation were oddly missing among all the documents showing offshore accounts, secret bank accounts, shady shell companies. Few rich Americans had their secrets exposed, because, as it turns out, if you're wealthy in America, you don't really
have to illegally hyde your ridges. Our bought off political class has already provided ample loopholes and legally sanctioned tricks to keep the rich from having to pay much in taxes, or, in some instances, really anything at all. This situation was made worse under the Trump administration when his tax cuts for the rich open up new opportunities for the wealthy
to skate with low or no taxes. But the preservation of low taxes for the rich has truly been a bipartisan affair, and now a former Obama solicitor general is behind a new push to guarantee that the ultra wealthy never have to pay their fair share. That is, according to reporting from our friends over at lever News, Neil Katyal has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of an anti tax organization attempting to use an obscure corporate taxation case as a vehicle for permanently
banning wealth taxes. Now, this effort would block one of the most promising ideas put forward in recent years to make sure billionaires are taxed at anything approaching the rates of ordinary Marria Mericans Kachiall has gained prominence in the Trump years as a resistant liberal mainstay of MSNBC. Of course, in spite of the factor, perhaps because of the fact that his work has frequently entailed carrying water for large
corporations in some of the most indefensible cases. This is the man, for example, who defended Nessle after they were caught knowingly using products obtained through child slavery. He also backed Johnson and Johnson's efforts to avoid liability when their baby powder was chock full of cancer causing asbestos. Katchill's also got some Supreme Court favors that he can trade
in now. During the Trump administration, he explicitly used his Obama era liberal cred to slather praise on every one of Trump Supreme Court nominees, providing them with critical Democratic cover to aid their confirmation process. Kotchiall can be seen here at Burning Man healthfully providing us all with an avatar of soulis elitism for our enjoyment as festival goers became miird in a pit of mud which left them
stranded for days. Sorry I had to include that. But he is not alone in his anti wall tax crusade. He has also joined in the anarchist brief by a former Clinton era Democratic Senator John brow Now. Since leaving the Senate, bro has become a highly paid lobbyist for companies like Exonmobile, Boeing and billionaire Democratic megadone or James Simons.
Every one of these companies and certainly the billionaire Megadoner, clearly have an interest in the future of this corporate tax case and whether it can successfully be used to rule a wealth tax unconstitutional. You can see how slimy
all of this is on its face. Katyall with his cozy political relationships, mainstream media credibility, and willingness to just shamelessly suck up to the justices and hopes that he can favor trade down the road bro taking money from whoever, wherever, and then coincidentally arguing their financial interests as part of a dark money group that frames itself as a social welfare organization in order to avoid any scrutiny or any transparency.
And the constitutional questions here is center around whether a wealth tax can count as income under the sixteenth Amendment, can unrealized gains count as quote unquote. Now, I'm not going to bore you with a lot of technical analysis, especially since the Supreme Court mostly just uses legal analysis as a cover for doing whatever the hell they want to do. Based on their ideology, personal corruption, and financial interests.
But it is worth noting that the very first income tax that passed after ratification of the sixteenth Amendment actually included unrealized corporate earnings as part of income, So at least at the time, they certainly thought income included unrealized games. In other words, to put this in plane in English, based on the definition and implementation of the sixteenth Amendment at that time, a wealth tax should pose no constitutional
problem whatsoever. Now, the need for a billionaire tax is obvious as a matter of revenue generation, basic fairness, and also to try to coax our society back from the brink of literal madness. Let's just say that wild inequality with billionaires building new cities from scratch while most Americans can't even make the rent not exactly great for the health of a nation. Currently, the wealthiest Americans pay for far less in taxes than you are likely paying right now.
One report found that on average, the four hundred wealthiest Americans pay an effective tax rate of eight point two percent. And that's an average that means there are plenty who are paying even less than this poultry sum. Now, the wealth taxes come a long way from lefty fringe idea
to more mainstream acceptance. Even Joe Biden, hardly a class revolutionary, embraced it as a means to potentially pay for the now tabled build back better currently seems a complete impossibility so long as Republicans hold the House and Joe Manchin holds the Senate. But listen, few elections could potentially change everything, which is exactly why an unholy alignance of corporate interest and bipartisan goals are doing all that they can to make sure that when it comes to taxing the rich,
nothing ever changes. And it is remarkable to me the way that they are.
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
All right, saga, what are you looking at?
Well as anyone who watches this show knows, I care a lot about dress code, much to the chagrin probably of most of you. Now most of society also is on your side at this point, and often I hear some version.
Of why do you even care?
We have bigger problems to worry about, or is it somehow elitists to think that dress code should be in place for the most powerful people in America.
That's an interesting one.
In this monologue, I'm going to try to answer those questions and make a case for why you should care, or at the very least, why you should think a little bit harder about the clear trend away by elites to dress down. The brujaja all started this week after the news broke that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has instructed the Sergeant of Arms to no longer enforce the dress code on the floor of the United States Senate.
The new directive says that business attire for members is no longer required in the chamber, in a nod to Senator John Fetterman and Senator Christian Cinema, who have both repeatedly violated the long standing policy. The details of the policy hit home to something I have always tried to underscore that when politicians dressed down in an official capacity, they're not trying to relate to you.
They think they're better than you.
Till missing from the analysis is that it only applies to senators on the floor. In other words, if you're one of the clerks or one of the aids, or a member of the press or a visitor, you will still be required to wear a suit and a tie, or if you're a woman, you will need closed toed shoes and you have to cover your shoulders. The elites can wear whatever they want and dressed like slobs. The staff must abide by the precedent. So okay, you could say, then, well,
who cares? Then just let the staff wear whatever they want.
Why is the.
Senate floor so special anyways? Do that have a very simple answer? The Senate floor, the House of Representatives, the Oval Office. They are symbols not of an individual, but of representative democracy itself.
It is not a boardroom. It is not just a mere corporation.
It is, at its best, the place in which the will of the people are supposed to be expressed. The point of dress code on the Capitol or at the White House has always been an enduring idea. Those who serve us must not do so for themselves, but must know the work that they are doing is on our behalf. Now, of course, so much of that already has been stripped away in policy, But shall we take away even the symbol?
A symbol endures through time and through history. Is a matter of seriousness to understand that when they walk on the floor to make laws on our behalf, it is a form of service rather than one just for their own benefit. Even in a much lesser role like my job here, the idea still applies. Yes, I have come to enjoy wearing a suit daily. I don't just do
it though for myself. When I put it on in the morning, I think about the people who watch the show all over the country, who I've met who say that they feel as if it's a source that speaks to their interests and their needs, that its respectability is one of the things that validates their lives and helps
them share the show with other people. In time, I've come to think of it too out of respect that if you give us the grace of your time, which is your most precious resource, it's the very least that I can do for you. You might have seen a recent trend on TikTok where women have been asking men in their lives how often do you think about the
Roman Empire? Apparently many think of it daily. With exciting their thoughts about the empire is how it relates to the origins of our democratic system and as a cautionary tale for how a Western empire can fall prey to its worst instincts and degenerate over time. Funnily enough, Roman history never was really my bag, which we can still talk about at another time, but apparently, since so many
people are interested, here's something to think about. The Senate chamber itself was modeled by the Founders off of the Roman Senate. The original Senate, as designed by the Founders, did not feature directly elected senators, instead those appointed by state legislators. The idea was that these representatives, with longer term appointments would not always get caught up in a mob movement and could coolly deliberate whether laws from the
House deserved passage. What would you know, though, The Roman Senate was actually governed by a very strict dress.
Quote.
You may have heard or have seen the Roman toga, but the senatorial toga itself was taken very very seriously. Roman senators had the right and the duty to where the lattice clavis a toga with Tyrian purple stripe. The toga had to be worn during all ceremonial activity, which strict finds in place for not attending. Major social backlash within Rome for those who did not hew to this
dress code. In fact, Cicero, one of the heroes to the American founders and the ideal of a good senator were, actually wrote extensively about how important it was to huge dress code and would lambast his enemies as UnRoman slabs that did not dress appropriately. Contrary to what many people think, the toga was not the everyday ware of the Roman citizen. In private, they would don tunic's or more comfortable clothing,
as we all do today. The standards, though, were in place for the senator and other Romans of high standing to mark their civic identity as a Roman citizen. It was the embodiment of the individual and their service to
a larger community. And funnily enough, it was right around the time of Emperor Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, who succeeded the Roman Republic, that dress standards of senators had fallen apart, so much so Augustus himself decreed that sloppy dress would no longer be tolerated, that the reclaiming Rome's glory, they must all return to the toga. So there you have it, an example from history itself of the senate. Even when people start to dress like bums
and representative chambers. It is a sign of civilizational decline. Maybe it's not that serious, but maybe they were onto something that a high standard of dress in the Senate Chamber was set to remind people of their duty to their citizens. When you lose symbols, you lose yourself. When you lose yourself, you lose your government, just as the Romans did.
So what do you think of some I ask?
And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
We have a great guest standing by its Andrew Yang. We're gonna do a long interview actually with him, so we'll post a little bit later.
We'll see you later.