← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Dems' Poll Numbers PLUMMET, plus How to Save $1TRILL in Fed Spending & Why We Need to Fix the Tax Laws to Treat Poker Pros Fairly
00:31:57
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Ben Ferguson
This is an iHeart podcast. Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you as always. And Senator, it's nice to be with you as we've got a couple of big things to chat about today, including the Democrats getting the lowest rating from voters in 35 years.
- [00:23]
Ted Cruz
Well, that's right. The Wall Street Journal just did a poll and found that the Democrats approval rating has plummeted. It is at the lowest level in 35 years. It turns out. Angry, filled with rage. And being a party that stands for nothing but hating Donald Trump is not actually a popular platform. We're gonna break that down and talk about what that means for elections coming up in 26 and going forward. Secondly, we're gonna talk about a proposal that I've been championing to cut spending and to cut spending dramatically and that is for the Federal Reserve to stop paying interest on bank reserves. This is a proposal that could save over a trillion dollars dollars over 10 years. I've made this case directly to the President in the Oval Office. I've introduced legislation to make this happen. We're going to talk about exactly what it would mean and why it makes a difference. And finally, we're going to talk about an element of the one big beautiful bill that was an unintended mistake, which is the one big beautiful bill changed how gambling losses are counted in taxes. And what it did for people like professional poker players is it ended up putting in place a rule that is wildly unfair, that punishes them, that taxes them on income they didn't earn. And so I've joined with some Democrats in terms of trying to fix this. I hope we can fix it because we ought to have a tax system that's fair. We're gonna explain that issue to you also.
- [01:47]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's also really interesting because it goes back to part of what the president did with no tax on tips. And he's like looking out for little guys and their jobs. It matters. We're going to break that down. It'll be very interesting. Want to tell you real quick about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're like me and you've made a commitment that, hey, you're going to spend money with companies that are aligned with your values, then you're going to love Patriot Mobile. There are a lot of choices when it comes to cell phone service, but there's one that I have been with for years and they've been doing it now for more than 12 years. They've been on the front lines as a company fighting for our God given rights and freedoms. And it's really awesome how this works. You switch to Patriot mobile and about 5% of your bill every month goes back to support conservative causes and organizations that are fighting for first Amendment rights, our second amendment rights, the rights of unborn children. And they also stand with our military, our veterans, and our wounded warriors. So when you make a phone call, when you send a text, when you pay that bill you're going to have every month, you're actually standing up for what you believe in and it doesn't cost you an extra dime. The other great thing about this is they've got exceptional nationwide self service with access to all three of the main networks. So what does that mean? You don't have to worry. And literally there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who made the switch. I'm one of them and I travel all the time and I love the coverage I get. Switching's never been easier either. You can activate minutes from the comfort of your home or your office. You, you can keep your same number, keep your same phone, or upgrade to a new one. Now let me give you a month of service for free. Go to patriot mobile.com verdict, that's patriot mobile.com verdict or call them 972-patriot. If you use the promo code verdict, you'll get a free month of service. That's patriot mobile.com vertic or 9772-patriot. Make the switch today and make a difference with every call you make. All right, so let's go to the Democrats in disarray. I have a theory, Senator, and I want to run it by you. I think the reason why Democrats are the lowest rating from voters in 35 years is because they didn't police their own party and get rid of the most extreme members who've now taken over the microphone. The AOCs, the law. Omars. The list goes on and on. The guy running for mayor in New York City, the radical Marxist socialists and communists have taken over the microphone. And that's why I think the American people are terrified of them right now.
- [04:18]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, it's not just they've taken over the microphone, they've taken over the party. There is nobody in the party. Name one prominent Democrat who has stood up to Comrade Mondami. You literally have a communist who is the Democrat party nominee to be mayor of New York other than John Fetterman. And I think John Fetterman is the exception that proves the rule. Other than John Fetterman, I do not know a single one of my colleagues in the Senate who has said a word of criticism that Goss maybe a guy calling for the abolition of private property, maybe a guy that is openly calling for a communist government is not the best face of the Democrat Party. And yet nobody disagrees. You look at when Chris Van Hollen flies down to El Salvador and has margaritas with an MS.13 gang member illegal immigrant who's right now being prosecuted for human trafficking. Not one single Democrat again, except for John Fetterman spoke out against it. And so it's not just that the crazies have been given the microphone, the crazies have been given the agenda. And here's what the Wall Street Journal reported. The Democrat Party's image has eroded to its lowest point in more than three decades, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll, with voters seeing Republicans as better at handling most issues that decide elections. The new survey finds that 63% of voters hold an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, the highest share in Journal polls dating to 1990, and 30 percentage points higher than the 33% who hold a favorable view. So the Democrats polling is 33% favorable, 63% unfavorable. And it Journal goes on to say that is a far weaker assessment than voters give to either President Trump or the Republican Party who are viewed more favorably than favorably by 7 points and 11 points respectively. So the Democrats are minus 30, President Trump is plus 7 and the Republican Party is plus 11. That is a huge difference. And what percent of voters do you think view the Democrats very favorably?
- [06:33]
Ben Ferguson
I'm going to guess it's probably not a very high number based on the Overall polling data.
- [06:38]
Ted Cruz
8%.
- [06:39]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [06:40]
Ted Cruz
8% of Americans.
- [06:41]
Ben Ferguson
That's not good. Just so everybody knows in politics that's bad.
- [06:45]
Ted Cruz
And by the way, by comparison, 19% of Americans view Republicans very favorably. So there's more intensity. People are very happy. And the Democrats, nobody except the communists are excited about the Democrats. That is a problem going into an election.
- [07:04]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's a huge problem for them. And then you go forward with Democrats, they've got everybody on their team. I'm referring to the media. I also think some of this comes down the fact that there's so many Americans are just going around the mainstream media now and will never go back. You look at the canceling, for example, of one of the late night shows. We talked about that last week, Stephen Colbert. Why? I think a lot of people are just like, we're done with you when you alienate half the country and mock us. And there's so many lies that have happened over the Last five, six, seven years that were egregious. The Russian hoax, a great example. I think that this is part of the reason why the Democratic Party's failing right now is because they don't have people covering for their propaganda.
- [07:46]
Ted Cruz
Well. And they're embracing. You know, it's amazing when a party decides, let's pick five issues and let's take the wrong side of 80, 20 issues or 9010 issues, it turns out that's really bad politics. When you say as a party, hey, let's be for open borders and Venezuelan gang members and releasing criminals and rapists and child molesters, that is a really, really unpopular position. It turns out when you say, hey, let's be for abolishing the police and attacking ICE and fighting against law enforcement, that is a really, really unpopular position. It turns out when you cheer on pro Hamas protesters who, who, who are cheering on we love Hamas, that is a really, really unpopular position. It turns out when you advocate for boys competing in girls sports and, and, and for doing surgeries that sterilize and mutilate, mutilate little boys and girls, that is a really, really unpopular position. And the Democrat Party as a whole has said, let's look at all those issues. Let's take the wrong side of 80, 20 or even 90, 10 issues and let's see how that works out. And the way it works out is you get the most unpopular Democrat party in the last 35 years.
- [08:58]
Ben Ferguson
What is your biggest concern? And I always say there's, there's a, there's a reaction to every action. Right. So it's low right now. What is the worry that do we get overconfident? Do we not continue to stay together the party? Because look, we are notorious, I'm talking about conservatives of screwing it up. When we have these types of leads, we have the House, we have the Senate. We actually have a chance, I think, to even have some gains in the midterms. And this is a midterm, I want to be clear, that actually is more favorable towards Democrats in the districts and the Senate seats that are open. You look at it, we have a real opportunity here to solidify our base and get even more done with the president. What is your worry about that, though?
- [09:40]
Ted Cruz
So my concern is twofold. My concern is political and my concern is policy. On the political side. When one party is out of power, that can be a dangerous dynamic. Because even though the Democrat Party is very unpopular, generally speaking, their hardcore partisans are pissed. They are filled with rage. They hate Donald Trump. That means their hardcore partisans will crawl over broken glass. These are the nuts that are having riots in the streets of LA saying we want more criminal illegal aliens in our country. That energy is dangerous. Look, right now the Democrats are outraising Republicans because their side is really energized. They hate Trump. And if you send out an email on the Democrat side, Donald Trump is the devil. Turns out people give a lot of money because if you're a crazy left winger, that energizes you. I worry about the enthusiasm gap that on the right. Look, Republicans by and large are feeling pretty good. We're winning massive victories. We talked about last week's podcast. We went through all of the major victories in the first six months of President Trump's term. That's fantastic. But the danger from a political perspective is that our guys get complacent. Okay, we're winning. Everything's taken care of, it's not urgent anymore. And that plays out both in terms of fundraising, that people just give less money to candidates this cycle around. But it also can manifest in turnout. If the crazies on the left are much more likely to show up in a midterm and our guys are complacent and feel like everything's fine, that can yield a really bad election. Secondly, the policy piece that I worry about, we've talked a lot on this podcast about the battle within the Trump administration on tariffs, how there is one camp within the Trump administration that wants to use tariffs as leverage to lower the tariffs of our trading partners. And Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, is in that camp. Elon Musk, when he was part of the White House, he was very much in that camp and I'm enthusiastically in that camp. I very much agree with what the President has been doing using tariffs, but using them as a means to an end, to lower the tariffs and remove non tariff barriers so that we can trade more and export more with our trading partners. The problem, and we've talked about this a lot in the pod as well, there is a contingent in this administration that doesn't view tariffs as a means to an end, that rather views tariffs as an objective, as a good economic outcome, that we have high tariffs forever. And if that contingent prevails, I worry next year that if we have really high tariffs that the US has put in place, and if our trading partners have really high tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, that we could end up going into a recession, the economy could turn downhill. And if that happens, that could lead to a really rough election. And so I'm going to continue to Engage closely and regularly with the president to say, keep using them as leverage, keep lowering the tariffs of our trading partners. That will produce good economic results. But it's not clear which side of that battle is going to prevail day by day on the policy battle.
- [12:53]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, great point there. One of the policies that got this president elected was the issue of fiscal responsibility. Doge was a huge part of that. And there is something that is happening in D.C. and it deals with eliminating Federal Reserve interest payments on reserves. This could sound certainly wonky and like, wait, what? Or, hey, it's over my head. This is actually something that is about reform. It is within the Federal Reserve, and it's something that I think is very clear, long overdue, and can have a major impact for all Americans. Dive into how this could work.
- [13:30]
Ted Cruz
Yeah. So this is an idea that I went to the White House, went to the Oval Office, and I pitched to President Trump in the middle of the one big, beautiful bill. And in terms of spending cuts, I gave the President a total of $3 trillion of spending cuts that we could have included in the bill and that I think we should have included in the bill. Ultimately, my views did not prevail, and we didn't do it on this first reconciliation bill. I hope we come back and do it on a later reconciliation bill and we can have two more reconciliation bills. This idea is one of the biggest ticket items, because if we do what I'm suggesting, we could save over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a big, big number. You know, when we were doing reconciliation, we were pulling our hair out to save 50 billion or $100 billion. One trillion is a lot of money. Now, what does this issue mean? So banks, big banks, they store reserves and they deposit reserves with the Federal Reserve. Now, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and from 1913 until 2007, how did it work? Banks would keep reserves with the Fed and they would get paid zero, nothing for the reserves. There was a requirement. It was typically about 10%. So if you're a big bank, let's say you've got $100 billion in deposits, you were required to keep $10 billion with the Fed. You didn't get paid any interest on it. You just had to keep that there. Because it's what's called fractional banking, which is you had $100 billion of deposits, 90 billion of it. You'd loan out. You'd loan out to individuals, you'd loan it out for home mortgages, you'd loan it out for Car loans, you'd loan it out to small businesses. So of the 100 billion in deposits, you didn't have 90 billion of it, but you were required to keep, typically about 10%. Just keep it with the Fed so that if Ben Ferguson comes in and says, hey, I want to withdraw $1,000 because, you know, I want to go buy a nice present for my wife, they had to have the thousand dollars to give you. So that's the way the system worked for almost 100 years. Then starting in 2008, when you had the great financial crisis, Congress changed the law and the Fed began paying interest on reserves. So the reserves that the banks kept with the Fed, they began paying interest. Now, at the time, the interest rate was incredibly low. And so 2008, you know, you had financial chaos everywhere. Do you know how much the Fed paid in interest on reserves in the entirety of 2008?
- [16:09]
Ben Ferguson
How much?
- [16:10]
Ted Cruz
About $1 billion. So in big picture, budgetary terms, a very small amount. It was. It was almost nominal, but it was the first year they began paying interest on reserves. Since 2008, they've been paying interest on reserves going forward. And it was small. It was small most of the time until the last two years of Joe Biden and the last two years of Joe Biden, the interest rate went up and up and up. And for both 2023 and 2024, the Fed paid over $100 billion in interest on reserves.
- [16:48]
Ben Ferguson
Wow. Last year, it's just pure tax dollars. You're paying your taxes and that money is just going to interest, period, interest to giant banks.
- [16:58]
Ted Cruz
So it is literally, the Fed is transferring your tax dollars to the biggest banks. In the world. Now it gets worse. So they no longer have a requirement, a reserve requirement of, say, 10%. There's actually no requirement at all. You know why? Because they're paying such a big interest rate that the banks are happy to park their money there. And in fact, they're not just doing the 10% reserves. They're putting a bunch more capital there. Right now today, the Fed is paying 4.4% to the banks to just park their capital with the fed. So in 2024, last year, the last year, the Biden administration, The Fed paid $168 billion in interest on reserves. That's taxpayer money that went straight to giant Wall street banks. I think that makes no sense. I think we need to end that.
- [17:53]
Ben Ferguson
So what is it going to be? The obviously hold up here. It seems like it's a sane policy. Is it going to be the lobbyists and how many people are being lobbied by the big banks to not change this? Is this going to be fighting also the Federal Reserve? I mean, where are the roadblocks here? Yes, and dive in. I mean, because this seems like a very simplistic, fiscal responsible thing to do. You would certainly do this in the private sector, in your own life. So why wouldn't the government do the same thing?
- [18:22]
Ted Cruz
So I'll tell you, while we were in the middle of the one big beautiful bill, I went on tv. I went on Squawk Box on cnbc. I love doing Squawk Box. It's one of my favorite shows because they're really smart. You can get into substance, you can get into details. In fact, several times I've done what they call guest hosting, Squawk Box, where you spend an hour on tv. And so instead of a little six minute interview where you have to do a sound bite, if you guest host Squawk Box for an hour, you can really get into substance and economic issues and issues dealing with finances. So I was doing Squawk Box during reconciliation and I raised this issue. And I gotta say, Becky Quick, who's one of the hosts, she's like, my goodness, this would be terrible. I mean, how could this possibly work? The Fed couldn't do its job. So there's several arguments that are made against this. One is, well, the Fed uses this to control interest rates. And that's right. She's like, well, if you took this away, the Fed wouldn't be able to control interest rates. How would they do it? And my response was, Becky, the same way they did it from 1913 to 2007, like the Fed existed for a hundred years and didn't pay a penny in interest on reserves. And, and somehow the Fed managed to operate until it began. Ben Bernanke was the head of the Fed at the time. And it was interesting. Ben Bernanke said, when this idea was being debated, he said, well, if we pay interest on reserves, that's going to be terrible. That's going to be corporate welfare. People are going to get pissed that we're giving taxpayer money to giant Wall street banks. And that's what Bernanke said when it was just a billion, now it is 168 billion. But their argument, and listen, it is true, the Fed's job has become much easier. They have a very direct way to control interest rates. Now they're paying 4.4%. If they want interest rates to go up, they just raise the interest rate. They say, okay, we'll pay you 4.6%. And all the other interest rates go up automatically. So it makes the Fed's job easier. If they don't do that, they have to do open market transactions to impact the interest rate. It's much more complicated. But again, they did it for 100 years. Ben, let me give you another fact that's going to blow your mind. Of the $168 billion that the Fed paid last year in interest on reserves.
- [20:37]
Ben Ferguson
Say that number again. You said 168 billion.
- [20:40]
Ted Cruz
Billion, golly, roughly half of that, nearly 50% went to foreign banks. So not even American banks. Foreign banks getting tens of billions of dollars of US Taxpayer money every year. Every year. And so I'll tell you, when I got off squawk box, I literally walked back to my office and the CEO of one of the biggest banks in the United States, a very, very well known CEO who I'm not gonna, not gonna name, but he's someone very well known, he called me very dismayed and saying this is a terrible idea. And I was sort of chuckling, saying, so you're saying you like getting billions of dollars of taxpayer funds every year? And his argument was, well, look, if the Fed stops paying interest on reserves, it's very simple, we'll just buy Treasuries instead. So you'll have to pay interest regardless now. And he said, and if you don't let us, if you just make us keep reserves, that's confiscation and you can't do that. And I'll tell you my reaction. Let me take each of those arguments that he made. On the first one, the Fed would be forced to buy Treasuries. Well, or no, I'm sorry, not the Fed. The banks would be forced to buy Treasuries instead of just parking their money at the Fed. That in and of itself would be a good outcome. Look, there's a lot of concern about a failed Fed auction. If the banks were buying Treasuries, that would create demand for Treasuries. And you know, one of the things it would do, it would drive down the interest rate by creating more demand for Treasuries, which means, listen, one of the things Donald Trump is trying very hard to do is to get the Fed to lower the interest rate. And Jay Powell doesn't want to do it. This change would create a market dynamic that would lower interest rates. That's a good thing. Secondly, you got a ton of money that are what are called excess reserves. They're beyond what a reasonable reserve requirement is.
- [22:46]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [22:47]
Ted Cruz
And it, and it's just sitting at the Fed. You know what that means? It means those billions of dollars or even those trillions of dollars are not being loaned to small businesses. They're not being loaned to open a new store, to buy new equipment, to hire new workers, to expand a. They're not creating jobs. It's just sitting there. The Fed is paying them. Just park your capital and do nothing. I'd much rather banks, if they want to earn a return, have to make loans and loan that out. And as for the second argument that this CEO said of, well, if you don't let them buy Treasuries, you just force them to keep reserves. And he said, that's confiscation. I would point out for the entire history of our country, that has been the law. There has been a reserve requirement that's called fractional banking. You know, if you have a bank, again use the example, you got a bank with a hundred billion dollars. It has not been legal for most of the history of our country for someone to take $100 billion in deposits and loan out a hundred billion dollars. Why is that not legal? Because if your depositors come in and say, hey, can I have my money back? If they've loaned all the money out, they don't have money to give it back to you. And so we have long had a regulatory system that says you have to keep a reasonable reserve so that if your depositors want their money back, you can pay them. That has never been confiscation. And so the banks have loved it because they have made massive amounts of money. Just ending this one, one provision over 10 years would save more than $1 trillion. It's a powerful, powerful idea, but I gotta say, they're really powerful forces that do not want to see this happen.
- [24:29]
Ben Ferguson
I want to finally move to that fix that you mentioned coming for the one big beautiful bill. There's a push, it's actually bipartisan, to undo a gambling tax hike that they passed in the Mega bill. And there was an outcry because it's, as you mentioned, it's unfair how it was written specifically to one group of people in the job that they do.
- [24:51]
Ted Cruz
Yeah. So there was a little provision that was written in the one big beautiful bill. And nobody saw this. This was a tiny little provision. The bill is mass bill. It's thousands of pages. And what this provision said is it deals with how you pay taxes on gambling winnings and losses. And the way the law used to work was very common sense, which is that you Deduct your losses from your wins and you pay taxes on your net. What you actually made your profit. That's actually a sensible way to do a tax law. The change. Now, anyone gambling can only deduct 90% of their losses rather than 100% of their losses. Now what does that mean? Let's take for example, as you know, I like to play poker. I play poker with a lot of buddies. I always play really low stakes poker, but I enjoy the game and I've got several friends who are poker pros. So, you know, I do every year I do a fundraiser in Vegas that raises money for my campaign and we get people who come and hang out and several poker players come and hang out with us and, and play poker. And so let's say you're. And there look, I like, I think poker is a fascinating game. It is strategic game, it involves math, but it involves reading people. I love watching like the World Series of Poker, watching the strategy. There's a whole vibrant world of people who earn their livings playing professional poker. And it's, you know, as you know, several years ago I got a chance. I played on Poker After Dark and I played with Doyle Brunson and Phil Hellmuth and Doyle Brunson, who was known as Texas Dolly, one of the greatest poker players to ever live. It was truly a bucket list experience to play with him. I also played with Mr. Beast, which was really fun. I got to tell you, sitting down, I was really, really excited to be playing with Doyle and playing with Phil Hellmuth. So my goal going in, look, both of them are much, much better players than I am. Obviously my goal was just to take chips off them. I wanted to win at least one hand and be like, all right, I won a hand and took chips. I ended up being lucky and doing better than that. And so with Doyle, I went all in and ended up busting him out, which is, and you can watch it if you want to Google, you can watch online. Me busting Doyle Brunson out. That was astonishing. And I got to say, he was so gracious. I mean, Doyle has since passed, but, but he won the very first World Series of Poker and is just a legendary poker player. That, that was incredibly meaningful. And then towards the end of the game on Poker After Dark, I was playing with Phil Hellmuth. Phil Hellmuth. Phil will tell you he's the greatest poker player alive by any measure. He's certainly one of the greatest poker players alive. And he's got a good argument that he may Be the greatest between Doyle and Phil, they had at the time 25 bracelets, which means together they had won 25 different World Series events. To give you a sense of just how accomplished these two players are, Phil and I end up we're playing Texas Hold' Em and I went all in, and I had ace, king, and he had ace, queen. So I had him dominated. I was a massive favorite. I was about a 3 to 1 favorite. And then what ends up happening is Phil got lucky and he sucked out a queen. And it was funny, Phil. And so he crippled me. Didn't knock me out, but he basically crippled me. And then I went out a couple hands later. It was funny. Phil was embarrassed because, because I got, got my chips in and as the dominant favorite, and he just got lucky. And he was like, oh, I feel terrible to win like that. I'm like, Phil, I am thrilled. If I played that hand 100 times, I'd want to play it exactly the same way and get my chips in every time. And look, that's why they call it gambling, because some chunk of it, you lose. Anyway, so let's talk about what this, this provision does. Let's say you're, you're a poker pro, and let's say in a given year, you lose $100,000 playing poker and you win $130,000. Okay? So you're, you know, you're not a super rich player, but you're out playing and you know, you made united 30 grand. 30 grand is what, what you made that year. Ordinarily, you would deduct the hundred grand from the 130 grand and you would pay taxes on the 30,000 profit you.
- [29:19]
Ben Ferguson
Had, which, by the way, is exactly what everyone else does right now.
- [29:23]
Ted Cruz
Under the new law, you lose 100 grand that year, you make 130, you could only deduct 90% of the hundred grand you lost, which means instead of paying taxes on the 30 grand you made, you would pay taxes on 40 grand. You would end up paying taxes on more than you made. That. That's wildly unfair, by the way. Even worse than that, let's assume you had a really lousy year. Let's assume you won a hundred thousand dollars and lost a hundred thousand dollars. So you, you like, just netted nothing. You broke even. Under this law, you'd have to pay taxes on 10 grand because you could only deduct 90% of your losses. So even though you made not a penny, you would owe taxes on the 10 grand. That is wildly unfair. And, and I gotta tell You. I don't know of a senator who knew this was in. There was a tiny little provision buried in there. We were moving incredibly fast at three in the morning, and so nobody saw it there. When I heard about it, I said, that makes no sense at all. But it was already passed. It was signed into law at the time. I heard about it. And so what I've done, I've joined with, with the two Nevada senators, with Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen. They're both Democrats, and also Bill Haggerty, who's a Republican. And all four of us have joined in legislation to fix this. I think we need to fix it. We should not be treating people unfairly. The income tax should tax people on real income, not imaginary income. That is unfair. I don't know that we'll get it fixed because, look, changing anything in the law is complicated, but I hope we will, because I can tell you, I don't know of a senator, Republican or Democrat, who's arguing this is a good idea. I've sat and talked with a number of my colleagues and it's not like someone is taking the other side and saying, no, let's be wildly unfair. I hope we can get this fixed. And I think we need to because we need to be fair. And look, there's a whole industry, particularly around Vegas, of people who are poker pros and make their livings and, and generate a lot of revenue. And if we don't change this, the effect will be to drive those poker pros out of the US we will force them to go elsewhere. That would be really a tragic outcome. And so I don't want to see that happen.
- [31:44]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, no doubt about it. Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button. Wherever you get this podcast, please write us that review and share this. It makes a huge difference in who sees and hears a show. And we will see you back here on Wednesday morning with Robinhood.
- [32:02]
Robinhood
Not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs. Trade all in one place. Get started now on Robinhood Trading. Crypto involves significant risk. Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto llc. Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Crypto held through Robinhood crypto is not FDIC insured or sipc. Protected investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC member SIPC, a registered broker dealer.
- [32:31]
Ben Ferguson
This is an iHeart podcast.