It's The Economy And Crime Yet Biden And The Democrats Keep Refusing To Admit Their Policies Are Destroying America!

had to be shocked, like what world is he living in? Look, I want to say all the history teachers in America, they must have smiled because it's nice to see the President of the United States giving a shout out to Marie Antoinette. She does not get enough credit. And when she said let them eat cake, that was widely ridiculed. But but Joe Biden feels that same sentiment towards the

American people. He has his ice cream cone. And so you know, if you're having trouble feeding your family, if you can't afford to fill your truck, well that's your problem. It is absurd and it demonstrates just how out of touch this administration is. Let me give you just some basic stats. Since Joe Biden became president, fuel oil is

up fifty eight percent. Airline fares are up forty three percent, Eggs are up thirty one percent, gas is up eighteen percent, Electricity is up sixteen percent, Milk is up fifteen percent, groceries are up thirteen percent, baby food is up twelve percent, meat, poultry, and fish are up eight percent. And inflation overall is up eight point five percent. And Joe Biden says the economy's doing great, just so long as you don't have

to buy anything. CBS News. Senator even came out on CBS this morning, and I think this tells you that they see what's about to happen in this country. They had a report that said sixty five percent of Americans say the economy is getting worse under Joe Biden. And that is a plurality of Americans are now blaming Democrats. Listen, look a worsening views of the economy, Nate who there's two thirds of people say it is getting worse. And let me show you why. One of the ways people

interact with the economy is gas prices. You're paying more. You're seeing those big signs up. Back in August, there was some optimism. Majority said well, okay, they're going down, but look at this now, sixty three percent say gas prices are going up in their area. So I ask people, okay, well, let's turn to politics there, who do you blame for this? What's the reason? Well, look, there's more folks now who say that Democratic policies have harmed the economy than helped it.

It's not the only reason they see for this, but they're reasoning out of results, right, They're filling a pinch. Parties in power, okay, must be doing something wrong. And then by contrast, they think, well, Republican policies more likely would help. I love the last part of that center. They said the majority of Americans now say Republican policies

would in fact help. Now, the Democrats are out there and the talking point that they're giving Americans is, if you vote for us, we're going to fix the problem with inflation. How is that possible? One of the ones that created this economic crisis, and they're the ones are in charge of the House and the Senate and the White House. Why would you give them a second chance

when they've already destroyed the economy with the first chance. Well, Ben, you're exactly right, and I will point out that that Raphael Warnock got asked that exact question on the campaign trail, says said, look, Democrats have been in charge of the White House, the Senate, the House, all of the levers of government. You have it fixed. Inflation. Inflation got much

worse on your watch. Why should anyone trust you? And he sat there like a deer in headlight, silent, and then finally the only answer he could stammer out is, well, well, we're instill in the middle of a COVID pandemic, which is complete garbage. And I would point out one person who said the pandemic was over was Joseph Robinette Biden Junior on a TV interview, so their talking points are shattered. But it is interesting. You know, just today Biden tweeted out,

I'm going to read you what he tweet did. He tweeted quote, if Republicans in Congress get their way, prices will go up and inflation will get worse. It's that simple. And I got to give them credit for one thing, and it's utter hutzpah, which is what he is saying is so bizarrely counterfactual. Two years ago, when you did have a Republican president in office, we had two dollars gasoline. Now in a lot of parts of the country it's

five to six seven dollars a gallon. Two years ago, you could get a home mortgage at two three percent, now at six seven percent and heading up. Two years ago the price of everything was much much lower. And the cause of it that this is where democrats are counting on economic ignorance they hope from the voters and active complicity from the media. Where does inflation come from it It has one source, and one source only. Milton Friedman put this beautifully a long time ago. Inflation comes

when the federal government spends too much money. When it prints money it doesn't have. When it spends money it doesn't have it. And I'll explain it in a really intuitive way. Look, all dollars are or a measure of value, so that we can know the relative value of one good versus another. Think, before we had currency, we had barter. And if you if you were growing chickens and I was growing wheat, and you decided you wanted some wheat, you brought three chickens, and I gave you a bushel

of wheat. That was less than convenient to carry three chickens with you. So yeah, although I will say for the record, Ben usually has three chickens on him wherever he goes. You got you gotta have that backup cash when you need it, my friend. Look, I mean, how do you think you made it through Greek life at old miss? I mean, three chickens are helpful? Ha ha ha. I'm gonna let you get away with that one. Okay, I've got but but just know it will come back

one day. We're talking idly style, I'm gonna hold back. But look, money then arose. All right, if we have a standard, let's say a coin, maybe we know that it is one coin for a bushel of wheat and two coins for a chicken. And the coin is just a relative unit of measurement of one good versus another. And so let's get fast forward to today. Suppose the price of an apple is a dollar and the price

of a banana is two dollars. The dollar is giving you the relative value of how much more apples there are, how much more people like bananas? If you double the number of dollars in the world, If you suddenly print twice as many dollars as a simple rough back of the nonvolute math Suddenly an apple will be worth two dollars and a banana will be worth four dollars because they're twice as many dollars. And what the money is showing is just the relative value of one good or another.

Why do we have rampant inflation? Because the Democrats have run the printing presses is like crazy, and they've spent over twelve trillion dollars and that's produced the inflation. And what they're counting on is that some voters who may not pay attention, may not know that, and the media will lie to them about it. But I think the voters are a lot smarter. You know what you just

played a moment ago. People have basic common sense. They recognize this stuff wasn't happening until the Democrats took over, and it really is making life harder for people across the country right now. You mentioned the lie a moment ago. This was literally at the White House press briefing, and this is what they said today when we talk about inflation gas prices, that's been something that's the American people have seen for the past several months, several weeks, and

has costs has been coming down. That's a lie. The costs have not been coming down. And even Bloomberg today Sender said the odds of a recession hit one hundred percent. In a blow to this idea that are coming down, they said today they describe this as a blow to the presents economic messaging ahead of the November elections, because they said, the US economy is effectively certain to enter a recession in the next twelve months according to model

projections from Bloomberg economists. That is clear we are headed there. And yet she sets from the White House podium today, No, no, no, prices are actually coming down. Where is my question her? Where are they coming down? So there are a couple of things going on there. Number one, even Bloomberg, which is acknowledging that it's one hundred percent we're headed to a recession. Even that is pro Biden Democrats spin, why because we are in a recession right now? Right now,

we are already in a recession. Why what is a recession defined as? What has it been refined at? Defined as for a long long time, two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth We've already had that we are in that this instant. The Biden White House tried to redefine

what the word recession means. But even under their redefined terms, now nobody can credibly say okay, well, even under their redefined terms, which is basically when a bunch of government economists sit around in a room and say, yep, this is a recession, they've gotten to the point that even the people who are on their payroll can't lie about it anymore and say anything other than this is a

recession because of the policies we've seen. Now. Secondly, what Karene John Pierre is saying is she's focusing on gas prices, and what happened is for the first year plus of the Biden administrations, gas prices spiked enormously, grew more than one hundred percent, went from two dollars and thirty eight cents when Biden came in to four and a half and in places like Nevada and California to six and

seven dollars a gallon. Now, it is true that in the summer gas prices dropped a little bit, they had a little bit of a decline, and the Biden White House immediately took a big victory laugh and said, see, they're not as horribly high as they were. A couple of months ago. They're still much much, much higher than they were when Biden became president. Now even that little

dip has turned around, they're going back up again. And listen, as we talked on the last podcast, Biden has been rendered utterly naked and exposed when the sadis made clear that he went and said, will you please give us a price break on oil for one month until election day? The day after election day, jack the hell out of it.

We don't care. We're good with ten dollars gasolene. He didn't say that part, but that's implied, and it makes clear that when the White House Press Secretary is talking, she's just spinning and she's not focused on It is not a policy objective for this administration to lower the

price of gasoline going forward. What's a policy objective is to have a momentary dip right before election day so that they hope voters are full tooled that this is something other than exactly what Joe Biden and the Green New Deal Democrats want, which is gasoline unaffordable because they want you to sell your truck and buy a little Prius, and they're going to make your life miserable until you

do that. You mentioned policies. One of the big policies that the President talked about today is a lasted effort, I think to buy votes. And there's so many American center that I think are still confused on the legality of this student loan forgiveness program. They announce this website, they announce you can get started on it, and I know many conservatives don't understand. One, how does the president have the power to do this without Congress being involved?

And two can the president decide because based on what they've been told, they're said they truly believe the president can't just forgive this private debt, which is what student loan debt is. It's my debt, not the public's debt. Yet they've started this website, they're moving forward with this. It's going to add to inflation and our deficit. How are they able to do this if in fact it is illegal? Or does the president have the right to decide what debts he wants to pay off in the

private sector? Yeah, So there are two different questions that are both relevant. Number one, is what Biden is doing legal? And number two will the judiciary? Will the courts step in and stop it? And those are separate questions. The first question, I think the answer is clearly no, that

the actions of the Biden administration are contrary to federal law. Now, the way the Biden administration justified this student lint loan giveaway is they based it on a statute that Congress passed after nine to eleven, twenty plus years ago, that gave the Secretary of Education some authority to forgive debts for soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines their family. So for people that were actually fighting al Qaeda that we're going and enlisted and we're fighting to defend this

nation against terrorism. Congress passed a bill called the Heroes Act that gave some authority to forgive their student loan debts. What the Biden Department of Justice did in an opinion that I've read that the opinion it's from the Office Illegal Counsel, which is the office and the Department of Justice charged with giving authoritative legal determinations from the entire

executive branch. And it has been headed by some of the greatest legal minds in history, including Anton and Scalia, including William Rehnquist, including my former boss, Chuck Cooper, including Ted Olsen who was George W. Bush's solicitor general. All of them have headed OLC. They the Biden OLC concluded that under this statute they could interpret essentially the families

of servicemen and women to mean everybody. And that's the really weak legal hook they used to argue that he can forgive student loans for everyone making under one hundred and twenty five thousand a year. Now, I believe if the Supreme Court gets before at the straightforward question, does Joe Biden have the statutory authority to forgive what could be a trillion dollars or more of debt to the United States? And one point on this you said they're

private debts. Unfortunately, one of the things the Democrats did under Obama is they nationalize the student loan industry. So they used to be when you and I took student loans. And by the way, I had a ton of student loans. I repaid my staff. Yeah, I paid it. I was I think thirty eight thirty nine years old when I paid them off. I paid them for nearly twenty years. I had about one hundred thousand dollars in student loans. When you and I took them out, you would take

them from a private bank. Under Obama, the federal government essentially federalized it all. So it's it's the US taxpayers, it's it's to whom the debt is owed. And so essentially what Biden is doing is giving away between somewhere between five hundred billion and a trillion dollars in the estimates vary. That will drive inflation, it will make a cost higher for everyone. I think if the Supreme Court gets to the question is it legal, I think they will conclude no. I think it would be a six

three ruling. Clearly, under the terms of the statute, Biden can't do it. Now here's the challenge. It is not clear any court will determine the merits of the question because it is a real challenge to find a plaintiff that has standing to bring the lawsuit. And this is where it gets a little bit complicated. But the basic principle is under the Constitution, our judiciary exists to resolve what are called cases and controversies, so actual disputes. It's

got to be a real fight the judiciary. You can't go to the court and just say, hey, answer this legal question for me. I'd like to know the answer to is what the President did on Tuesday or not. Our courts don't do that. It's got to be an actual case or controversy. That usually means something like a civil suit. Say you and I get in a car wreck, I hit your car, you sue me. Okay, that's an actual case or controversy. And if I've hit your car,

you are a plaintiff with a concrete injury. In order to have standing, you have to have a concrete and particularized injury. There are a bunch of lawsuits that have been filed, but the real challenge is are the courts going to conclude any of the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit have an injury to them in particular, not an abstract. This is illegal and I don't like it, but I ben Ferguson have been hurt by that decision. If they can get overstanding, I think the courts will strike it down.

But I also think there's a chance that they don't find a plaintiff who has standing, and that's clearly what the Biden administration is rolling the dice and gambling off. So then here's my next question. I would argue, and this is where I love that you're an attorney that understands us and a senator that understands the laws. I would say, well, I was hurt because I worked my tail off to pay my student loans off. When I got married, I said to my wife, we're gonna pay

her student loans off. It hurt our family significantly economically because that money that we paid off. I'd love to have it back now if my tax dollars in theory, we're gonna pay it off anyway. Is that a damage or is that pretty much good luck? But the court would not say that's a reason to bring it forward to to a court of law to say your damages are You're a responsible American, you paid off your student debt.

So as a general matter, the answer is no, that courts would not conclude that's a sufficient injury for standing. And for a long time the courts have said there is not taxpayer standing, which means you or I, because we're taxpayers, we can't go file a lawsuit and say, hey, the government is spending money on X, and X is illegal because if you could, everyone would have standing to

challenge just about everything. And so it starts to become much more a system where courts are just resolving legal questions rather than actual disputes and cases and controversies. So the argument that you and I and millions of people have that we were responsible and paid off our debts

and it's not fair what's happening here. As a general matter, the courts have not concluded someone has standing to say, hey, it's not fair that the government gave that person a benefit that they didn't give me, unless there is a reason for that distinction that somehow violates the law. So

there are different groups that potentially have standing. Number one, you could find plaintiffs that say, have student loans right now and that have earn one hundred and twenty six thousand, so they're ineligible, and they perhaps could argue this is an illegal benefit to someone similarly situated that advantages them over themselves. That's a tough standing argument. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but a lot of courts would throw that out.

That's one possible plane iff. Another possible plane iff would be either an individual or a group of students, either current students or people who are applying to colleges who say the effect of this trillion dollar giveaway is it's going to drive up the cost of tuition for everyone. The universities are going to say, great, let's charge them even more. That is true as an economic matter, it is going to drive up the cost of tuition for everyone.

The question is would a court determine that that was specific and concrete enough to give you standing. The best theory I've heard for who might have standing to challenge this is the loan processor. So their private company that are in the business of processing these loans, and with a trillion dollars of debts disappearing, those loan processors will make significantly less money. That is a concrete injury sufficient to give standing. The question now is a political one.

If your business is being a loan processor and the federal government is your principal client, suing the federal government is a good way to piss off your principal clients. So the question is going to be are there going to be loan processors willing to bring those lawsuits? I hope so, but that's still very much up in the air.

So then that brings me in my final question, and this is the one where everybody's saying, all right, let's say that we can't go down the legal road the way you described it, and it's probably not going to work. Then the question is, if you become the majority in the Senate and we gain control of the House, is there a way to stop this or is the damage already done. Well, it's a good I certainly think we should tee up a vote and get everyone on record on this, because I got to say, as a matter

of fairness, this decision really is reverse Robin Hood. You know, Robin Hood famously took from the rich and gave from the poor. What Joe Biden the Democrats are doing is exactly the opposite. They're taking from the poor and working class and giving to the rich. They're taking from truck drivers and welders and cops and firefighters and waiters and waitresses and blue collar workers, everyone who didn't go to college.

They're saying, you know what, We're gonna take a trill you to your tax dollars, and we're gonna give it to a twenty three year old Brown University graduate who majored in you know, French poetry, and we're just going to give that money to college graduates who are significantly richer than you are. Why. Because Biden and the Democrats want to buy their votes, and there's a there's a real unfairness there. So I hope when we have a majority, we tee up a vote and get everyone on record

on it. Whether Congress is able to reverse it is going to be a harder challenge because presumably any legislation number one would face a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. So even if we take a majority, we're not going to have sixty in the Senate, so the Democrats would be able to filibuster it, and even if we passed it,

Biden would be able to veto it. And so we can tee it up as a fight next year with majorities, but we need to win the White House before we have the ability to actually make a meaningful impact on this decision. It's frustrating for many Americans because it is buying votes, and that's the part that's so frustrating, because you're supposed to be illegal to do it, and yet this present is somehow pulling it off this way and

trying to get rid of a trillion dollars in debt. Senator, I want to get to two other stories that we've highlighted here over the last couple of episodes, and for people that are listening right now, make sure you go back and listen. You may not realize this. We're doing three podcasts a week, so make sure you get that subscriber download button. Most importantly, please write us a five star review wherever you're listening to this podcast as well.

But these two stories that we talked about. Number one, the DEM's not wanting to debate, and this scares me for our democracy that we're going to just have democrats that realize debating is not going to help them in an election. It's only going to hurt them because they can't stand up and defend their own stances on the issues. But there's an interesting thing that happened in a race that you've gotten involved in, where you had a Democrat the very last minute who had agreed to debate just

said screw it, I'm out, I'm not debating. And the reason why she didn't want to debate was also another issue that we just talked about. Give us more detail into this. Democrats running from the debate stage. Well, yeah, we had two of the stories. On our last podcast intersect. We talked about Democrats refusing to debate. Since we did that podcast. Yet another Democrat is backed away from a debate. Abigail Spanberger, who is an incumbent Democrat in Virginia, very

vulnerable democrat. I think she's going to lose in November. Her opponent as a candidate named yes Leie Vega. Yeslie is someone who I know well. Yesli is a fantastic candidate. Let me tell you about yes Lei Vega. Yeslie is the daughter of immigrants from El Salvador. Yeslie's brother was shot and nearly killed by MS thirteen. So when it comes to illegal immigration, she knows firsthand just how horrific it is. It is personal to her. Yeslie is married

to a soldier. The two of them were stationed abroad and Korea. She is the mom of two teenage kids, and she's a police officer. When her brother was shot, she was so upset she went and signed up. She's been a cop for over a decade and she is a fireball. She is a fighter. So Abigail Spanburger, the coming Democrat, didn't want to debate her, but agreed to

accept it a debate. And then the other story we talked about last week, this Virginia delegate who introduced legislation in the Virginia legislature to make it a felony if a parent refuses to transition your child from one sex to another, refuses to give surgery, refuses to accept if you're a little boy or a little girl comes in

and says that they want to be the opposite. If a parent says, no, I'm not going to take you to a doctor and sterilize you and engage in permanent life altering surgeries, the state of Virginia, if this legislation passed, would make that a felony and lock the parent up. Well, that left wing Democrat happens to be a big surrogate

for Abigail Spamberger. And suddenly Abigail Spamberger is going, oh, crap, if I go to a debate, they're going to ask me about this crazy position, and I've either got to distance myself from my supporter or defend this lunacy. And so what did she do. She's trying to back out of the debate. And I got to say, there's a reason democrats don't want to debate. They can't defend their policies because they're indefensible. The idea that you would lock

parents up for refusing to mutilate your child. It is it defies words. And so that's why this Democrat doesn't want to justify. When you see them not debating, and I do think this is a trend. It early on, your initial reaction is, oh, look, they can't even defend themselves.

This is great. But I think what we're seeing and where we're moving forward is I worry about a day when a Democratic candidates running for the White House and says, I'm not going to debate the Republican and then we lose all debates in this country, and debates wing elections. When you were running for president, one of the things that I think, and when you're running for the Senate, the debates were you were you your place to shine,

and they make people's political careers. And when you up against big money and big donors, the debate stage cannot hide you. Right. You can have your messaging, you can buy a million ads, you can spend one hundred million dollars on ads, but the debate stage is what I refer to as the grand equalizer. It's a moment where you can't hide behind the the you know, the the TV screen to the voters. Any longer, and you're exposed

your weaknesses if you're not a great candidate. And now We're at a point in this country where I'm worried it's going to be totally normal for Democrats say we will never debate a Republican again. Look, I am very concerned about that, and you're right. The next step is for Democrats to elevate that to the presidential level. Joe Biden basically hidden the basement the entire campaign, but he did at least show up to the debates. He didn't take that final step, And I will say that is

another factor. Listen, I've done a lot of debates, a lot of political debates in my time, and going back to the presidential race, in any campaign, but particularly a national campaign, a presidential campaign, the corporate media has enormous power.

On any given day, whatever message the corporate media tries to carry, decides to carry, that dominates the airwaves, and that typically favors It favors whoever the candidate is with the most name ide, whoever the candidate is that conventional wisdom is is supposed to win, or whoever the candidate is that the corporate media wants to win. For any other candidate. It is incredibly difficult to break through that giant wall of constant narratives set by the corrupt corporate media.

Debates are one of the very very few moments where you can break through, where you can actually have a message heard that the corporate media doesn't want you to hear. And it's why this is very different ferential on a partisan line. Listen, if you're a Democrat, the media carry your water every day, they carry your message. They are your propagandists, particularly today, so many Democrats never face difficult questions.

The only place they might face a difficult question is on a debate stage, where at least their opponent can ask the question. Ideally a moderator will too, but a lot of the moderators are wildly biased. But on a debate stage, at least the opponent can turn directly to a Democrat candidate and say, you voted for X, you did, why your position is hurting people? Give me your answer.

And so the decision to say we're going to avoid debates as Democrats saying we will not answer questions, that's a really dangerous shift going forward, because there really is nothing like a debate to cut through whatever the established corporate media narrative is, which brings me to my last question. There's a big debate that you're going to be having on Monday. The View took a shot at you today saying the only time conservatives will come on our show

is when they want to sell a book. Yes, you have a book out, that's exactly why. By the way, the View is having you on their show. But I want people to listen to what the View said today and then I want to get your reaction to it and set your DVR because this coming Monday, Senator Cruze is going to be on the View. It will be fireworks. I've got my money on you listen to this. And hey, you know, we don't turn people away except a fair

election deniers. Right, Well, no, I think we don't turn to election deniers away either, because, as you said, people need to hear where people are coming from. And if that's what see, this is the problem with it. We have to we have to give you. We have to give you. He's been enough, I don't know, and he has just take him on the problem. Yes, take him on. But you see, you haven't been here before. What tends to happen when your guys come is they don't come

to talk to us. Oftentimes they come to sell a book. They don't like to come to just talk to us. Also, that is what I want to quick thing. No you can't. Can you really fast to a really really just go quick? There's talking Trump world that Carry Lake is going to be his running mate. That's how much the Trump base loves her, which is horrifying. But go ahead. I love that last part and I left in there because the fake Republican on the panel is telling you that Carry

Lake is horrifying. And then you hear on a Navarro they're saying, Oh, I'm going to bring it on. Senator. You're not one to shy away from a grand debate. That's why you're going on the show. Yet they accuse you and others of shying away from the debate when you're literally showing up to debate the entire hostile panel. Well, I do find it amusing that the that they're common is let's take him on. Yes, let's take him on. You know, you know that's the fair and impartial journalism

we have today. They are rich, out of touch leftists, and I fully expect that they're just going to scream and yell at me for the entire interview. That's fine. I assume none of them will have read my book. None of them care to read the book, none of them care to hear an opposing point of view, and their objective is just going to be to attack, and I assume to attack in a pretty nasty manner. That

that's fine. I'm actually eager to have conversations about actual substance and facts because I think the American people deserve that. And and we'll see if any of that happens on Monday. I hope it will. I can't say I'm filled with excessive optimism that that we will have a civil, respectful conversation on the merits, but but one can always hope. Look, I think these debates are important. Set your DVR. You will see the Center Ted Cruise do what he does

so brilliantly. Center. It's always a pleasure hanging out with you. And for everybody listening, reminder, we do this three days a week now, so make sure you get that subscriber auto download button so that you get every episode of Verdict as it comes out, and we will see you back here in a couple of days.