C (3:19)

Yeah. I mean, it strikes me, though, is that there was essentially a. A calculation by a lot of these far left members of the caucus, even in the media. And you see this Sunny Hostin is basically saying, hey, we want Schumer out. We want to replace Schumer. So you're essentially. It feels almost like they're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here because they were winning the messaging war. They had convinced a large percentage of at least their electorate, but maybe some squishy middles that we were just wanting to starve little kids and take health care away from Americans. They were sort of winning on that. And now they're freak out over reopening the government because they were never going to have the votes, Ryan. They were never going to get there. The caucus, the Republican caucus, was staying firm on these ACA subsidies. So essentially they were doing it for optics. But it's like, the point is, it's the most cynical reaction to it. And I think their reaction is giving Trump and the Republicans the upper hand here.

B (4:19)

Well, go back to when the shutdown starts. What was the number one story going on in the political media? Aoc, potentially to challenge Schumer. And he needed to seem like he was a fighter. This is what the fight was over. It was over Schumer's political career and Schumer's political future. And I think that was a big part of it. I think Schumer really. And that's why Schumer voted against it. Schumer would never usually vote against a government spending bill. He usually always votes for this. It's to show that Schumer still is tough and Schumer should not be primaried and. And they're all gonna come after him. Ro Khan has already come after him, as you said. Sunny Hasan. There's other people on the left saying Schumer has to go. And I think that that's really the tragedy of Schumer's life. He's spent his entire life trying to get to this point and the most I think he ever had is 51 Democratic senators to really do nothing. Wes.

C (5:07)

Yeah, it is. All right, so let's go back to this 50 year mortgage debate and kind of this Gen Z economic moonshot idea we've got. We actually talked about an hour one and I mean, we got inundated by emails across generations about what they thought of it. I'll be honest. I think, Blake, you would agree it was more positive than we were expecting. People are actually a little bit more positive on this idea, at least in our audience, than what you would see on Twitter. X discussion Blake. I don't know if you.

D (5:37)

I was definitely expecting more negativity on it. And then I got a lot of people who said they liked the idea.

C (5:42)

Yeah, they basically are seeing in a very pragmatic way how people could use this, use it to get into the market from the first place and then refinance or use it to trade up to a home. So people are seeing flexibility, they're seeing opportunity. Being pragmatist about it. Our original take this morning was that it reeks of debt slavery. It's not addressing the underlying root causes. It's just sort of like covering over them, papering over them. Ryan James Graduski, make sense of that for us. What's your take?

B (6:11)

Yeah, I kind of agree that it's an entrance to the marketplace. I don't hate it because it's not like you have to do it right. You're not forced to say you'd still do a 30 year loan. It's not like they're getting rid of the 30 year loan. And I think for a lot of people is that try to get in for lower rates and then readjust over time. But the American public is extremely fickle. We want, we want solutions to take care of itself within six months. I mean, it's almost like we almost have like a sitcom show brain. Like the whole episode has to have a happy ending within 28 minutes. Otherwise we don't really want to be part of it. So we would like a very short term answer to this and the problem is the root cause of our economy. The real stressors of it right now for everyday people, it's been happening for at least the five years, at least since COVID a lot of these problems have been taking place. If you want to talk about the deficit and talk about other things, it's to going, going on way longer, right? Trading balances way, way longer. But right now, the insustainability of life for working class people and especially for Gen Z has been going for five years. You can't fix the whole thing in the nine months that Trump has been president. Right. And I know at times it doesn't seem like he's been paying attention to it because there's been other high profile things, the wars in the Middle east and trying to solve Ukraine and other stuff. But I think that given what is the problem, right. For the everyday life, it's a question of how do I make it better in the immediate. And that's a good answer. It's a band aid. It's not the full solution, but I don't hate it.

C (7:38)

All right, so I'm gonna say a provocative statement and I want both of you to react to it. I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm saying this is a critique that has been leveled against this administration and I've heard it from both sides. Actually, I had a conversation this morning from somebody on the left that alleged this, which doesn't surprise me, but hearing it over the weekend from the right, President Trump's economic populism is fake. Prove me wrong. Do you guys agree or do you disagree? Blake, you can go first. Cuz Ryan's thinking right now, I can see him.

D (8:11)

I mean he's definitely done some pretty populous things. I mean the tariffs are a populist measure, clearly. Like he's done them for a populist objective to bring manufacturing back to America. And I mean even the 50 year mortgage, this is intended as a populous thing and it might be more popular than.

C (8:29)

He's talking about the $2,000 tariff.

D (8:32)

The $2,000 tariff that I don't like. That is.

C (8:35)

That's not your cup of tea.

D (8:36)

It's not my cup of tea.

C (8:37)

You'd rather pay down debts you'd rather.

D (8:39)

I'd rather not take out. And it feels like, I almost suspect some of it is he's trying to, you know, maybe politically pressure the Supreme Court because he can be like, well, I'd have to take $2,000 back from everyone if the tariffs get repealed. And it's also just we Saw during COVID we had a lot of stimulus payments during COVID and it just drove an inflationary spike.

C (8:59)

Get me those stimmies.

D (8:59)

Yeah, the stimmies.

C (9:00)

Give me those stimmies.

D (9:01)

Like, you know, it's sort of like, oh, give me one more hit of, of something. It's in the end, we are addicted to cheap money. And the trigger that is not more cheap money, but coming down from that, this is what the hard point of a lot of populism is. It is painful to make good economic decisions long term. It is very healthy. But especially because of how addicted America's gotten to our current pattern, it will be hard to break that pattern and possibly even politically impossible. And that's really tough.

C (9:32)

Ryan James GRADUATE I think that it.

B (9:35)

Has been a mixed bag, right, American right. The America right is obsessed with free market capitalism. And so he's sticking to things like the tax cuts on the wealthy that I don't think. I think if you would have gotten rid of those, that it would have been much more populous. But I think that at the same exact time he has done, he's inarguably done populous things. I think it's a mixed bag. It's hard to sit there and say he's only done one, only done the other. He has to work within a Congress, he has to work within the Senate. I know that. I went to Capitol Hill right before the tax cut votes were coming up and I said, here's a poll that I've done with some very smart people. Least popular thing were tax cuts for millionaires. Most popular thing, no tax on Social Security, no tax on tips. They really did not like that answer. So I think that given.

C (10:18)

Say that again, Ryan.

B (10:19)

What was the most popular thing was no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security. Overwhelmingly by voters. Least popular tax cuts for millionaires. I brought that to the Republicans in Congress in the committee and they were not really feeling that information.

C (10:36)

Are you ready to drop up to 20 pounds or more by the new year at PhD weight loss, they've cracked the code with their Metabolic Reset system, a science backed method that gets your body to burn fat first. The program is simple. They tell you when to eat, what to eat, and customize the program to your body's needs and your schedule. But that's not the best part. PhD is the only program that guarantees your success and your results. No starving, no endless workouts, no risky drugs. Just a smarter system that resets your metabolism, shrinks dangerous belly fat and keeps the weight off permanently.

A (11:11)

PhD can help you too. And they won't let you fail. Give them a call and schedule your weight loss consultation and see if the program is right for you. Call 864-644-1900. That is 864-644-1900.

C (11:24)

When you call right now, they'll waive your consultation fee. You'll get two extra weeks free, and they'll cover the cost of your food. And during the program. And just for booking, you'll receive Dr. Ashley's book. Five Steps to Reset the Scale. Hurry. The offer is only good in October. So call now. Mention the code new year. Call 864-644-1900. That's 864-644-1900. Or visit their website at myphdweightloss.com that's 864-644-1900 and mention code New Year. Or visit their website@myphdweightloss.com Ryan, real quick, give us your coordinates here. Where can people follow you find the work that you're doing?

B (12:08)

Yeah, you can find my on Twitter, Ryan Gardusky. I have a website, ryangradowski.com where you can get my great newsletter. I have a podcast in the iHeartRadio app. And everywhere you get podcasts called the Numbers Game. And I have a pack for education called the 1776 Project Pack. And we have a foundation called the 1776 Project Foundation.

C (12:24)

What are you doing at the. At the pack there? Just so people, we.

B (12:27)

We invest in school board elections. So we did about 80 school board elections last week. We didn't do Great night, but we still won 27 of them. And then the foundation gets involved with those school boards to sit there and say, how do we improve reading levels? How do we get involved with discipline? How do we get rid of some critical race theory in your classrooms? How do we celebrate America's. Yeah, stuff like that.

C (12:43)

So super important. And it's a lot.

D (12:45)

I was reading just over the weekend about someone in a really conservative part of the country, but they just said the school board is like all kind of just libs because people don't pay attention to it. And it was like one guy blocking all the, you know, insane race communism and he lost reelection.

B (13:00)

So.

C (13:00)

Geez. So that school board is now screwed again. So actually this applied for an endorsement. Yeah, exactly. So check out Ryan's stuff. He's doing great work. And I read your national populist substack all the time. Your newsletter I appreciate. Yeah, absolutely. And by the way, which is why I was why we actually had you on here is you had a contrarian take on New Jersey. It all ties in because Dems were playing the shutdown to juice up their base voters especially. And it was smart because this is an off year election. Our turnout, we have low prop voters, they have high prop voters. You juice it. This is why we saw some of these margins increase over 20, 21 years. You say there's a glass half full interpretation of what we saw in New Jersey specifically. I'm sure you could extrapolate that out. But what is your take?

B (13:47)

Yeah. So unlike Virginia, where Winston Sears really didn't run a very good race, Cittarelli did run a very good race. He got 200,000 more votes or 122,000 more votes than he did last time. That being said, he would have won any election in New Jersey's history since 1973, except for the one last week because turnout increased by more than 50%. But when you look at the very bare bones metrics of where New Jersey is going, it's undeniably going in favor of Republicans. And I'll point this out. In the first year of the Trump administration in 2017, Democrats were out registered new voters in New Jersey, 12,500 to Republicans. Sorry, Republicans registered about 12,500. Democrats raised about 45,000. There was an immense blowback from Trump when Trump first got in. Tens of thousands of new Democrats coming out of the woodwork, hundreds of thousands of new Democrats over the course of the four years. In the first year of this year, that all began to reverse when Biden became president. By the way, in the first year of this year, Democrats lost 8,600 voters in the first 10 months of this year, while Republicans gained 21,000 new voters. Right. An unparalleled trajectory, completely different than when Trump first became president. That shows that where the direction where the trajectory of Jersey is going is undeniable. Even though we had an election loss, even though independents swung against us this one time, people would much rather be a Republican than a Democrat. And there's a point of clarity in New Jersey that the Democrats party really isn't working there. Now we've heard a lot about like the Latino vote. Right? The Latino vote swung heavily. When you look at how the Latino vote compared voted in 2025 versus 2021 and 2017, they're still way more to the right than they were in 2017. Right. They haven't lost all this huge support that we're going for Republicans in some places. It's a Double digit increase. When you look at Republican versus Democrat increase in the raw vote, Republicans in many cities they in like Passaic, there was more raw vote increase towards Republicans over the last eight years than there were towards Democrats. And actually when the liberals like, oh, it's all immigration. When you look at what voters are talking about, it was cost of living. Because you know what groups swung even harder against Republicans than Latinos in this last election from compared to 2021, it was non college educated whites. Non college educated whites actually had a bigger swing because it's about affordability and they are feeling it in the pocketbook. It wasn't an immigration thing, it's not a Trump thing. It's just, it's a mixture of high propensity turn up from Democrats and anger over the economy.

C (16:25)

So would you say that. And by the way, I'm glad you brought up Latinos because one of the things Blake and I have talked a lot about is, you know, these new maps out of Texas, a lot of that is contingent on Hispanics staying in the Republican column. You could over engineer those maps and find yourself in a worse position, theoretically. So are you seeing, are you seeing that trend continue? Is it accelerating what's happening with Latinos? And I know I'm talking about Texas and New Jersey, it's probably two different things, but we got 30 seconds.

B (16:52)

Yeah, well, there was a poll by Unados, which is not a great polling firm. They're pretty liberal. However, they polled Latinos and they said what are your five biggest issues? Four were related to the economy, cost of living, healthcare, housing, and the fifth one was gun violence. Immigration does not make the top five. And when you look at where they project Hispanics to go versus where they went, it's about maybe a five point swing in the direction of Democrats, but it's not overwhelming and it's not pre 2022 swing towards Republicans. 2020.

C (17:19)

Do you think that holds for Texas too? Real quick?

B (17:21)

Yes, I do.

C (17:22)

Okay, good. All right.

B (17:23)

Because Tejanos are more to the right than the Latinos are.

C (17:25)

Ryan James, graduate, Great work, my friend. Thank you for making the time today. I know you had to move some.

B (17:29)

Stuff around for having me.

C (17:30)

Thank you so much. President Trump walked into a catch 22 when taking office. Do nothing in America would be staring at a ticking debt bomb, the kind of crisis that could cripple our. He's taken action with strong policies to slow the train and buy us some time. But the effects of past administration spending are still working through the system and experts predict dramatic Price increases and market uncertainty. Trump is doing all he can, but no matter who's in office, protecting your retirement savings is ultimately up to you. And that's why many Americans are turning to real assets like gold and silver. Preserve gold is our go to choice here at the Charlie Kirk Show. We use them because they make it easy to own physical gold and silver even inside your retirement accounts like an IRA or 401k. Now hear from Charlie in his own words.

A (18:18)

Preserve gold is my go to choice for all my precious metal needs. They are the real deal and I recommend them to my friends, family and viewers.

C (18:25)

Get their free wealth protection guide now by Texting Charlie to 50505. President Trump is fighting for America's future. Now it's your turn to help protect yours. Julie Kelly is with us. The great Julie Kelly. Welcome back to the show, Julie. I think this is the first time we've had you since all of everything went down. So welcome back. It's been too long.

E (18:48)

It has been. Andrew, thank you so much for having me on. And I know we're going to talk about some issues that were near and dear to Charlie's heart and that he and I discussed several times over the last few years. So thanks so much for having me on.

C (19:03)

Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, we talked about this over the weekend and it's true. I mean, I think about all the times we had Darren Beatty on and you on talking about who did this. You know, it's, if you think back on the stakes of the J6 pipe bomber, I mean, if we're to believe what we're told is like Kamala Harris almost got, you know, murdered and then like, nobody in the government seemed to care. So it is a very, very weird.

D (19:29)

We heard so much about January 6th and yet so rarely would they mention, like, the attempted assassination of the vice president or like this terrorist bombing is at the center of it.

C (19:38)

So there was some news this weekend, Julia. I approach it with fear and trembling because there's a lot of moving pieces here and a lot of allegations being thrown around. So please set the stage, tell our audience what happened this weekend, and then we'll get into whether we should believe it or not.

E (19:59)

So first of all, as you guys know and Charlie knows, knew that I have been covering the pipe bomb, January six pipe bomb issue, really, since the summer of 2021. And no one did more work on this, really, than Darren Beatty at Revolver News. He's now in the administration. I really miss him at times like this because he always, he pegged and he exposed so many strange circumstances with both the dnc. That is where the pipe bomb was found outside of the headquarters of the Democratic national committee at about 1:05 on the afternoon of January 6, 2021. You could see police officer vehicles right there, including one belonging to the U.S. secret Service. Because to your point, we also uncovered the fact that strangely, Kamala Harris, who was a sitting US Senator at the time, she was going to be part of the proceedings that day. Also historic incoming vice president, for inexplicable reasons, went to the DNC headquarters at around 11:25 that morning. She was there when this really dummy device was found outside just to the right of where that black SUV is. And then also we have covered the equally strange circumstances about the discovery of the device outside of the Republican National Committee headquarters that was detected at about 12:40pm 20 minutes before that joint session of Congress convened. So anyway, we have been exposing all of this, Kamala Harris's presence, the law enforcement ties of the woman who discovered the RNC pipe bomb. I found the video that showed bomb sniffing canine units not once but twice right near the DNC device. So, look, few people want to know the identity of the person or people who set those devices, but what we saw happen over the weekend was a. And there is, you could see law enforcement after the alleged device was found. And as you guys know, it was right in between those two benches under that Bush. So at any rate, few people want to know the identity more than I do or Darren Beatty or the people who've really done so much work on this. But over the weekend, a really bombshell, sorry for the pun, story on the Blaze claiming that a gait analysis had determined the identity of an individual who had similar walking patterns as this individual here, seen on surveillance video the night of January 5th, which is when the FBI thinks that both of those devices were planted. So this has been. Yes, I'm, I'm not going to say her name, but she was a Capitol police officer on January 6. She was using non lethal munitions against the crowd, firing pepper balls into the crowd, as many Capitol Police officers were doing. And apparently looking at that video, Steve Baker, who's one of the reporters on this story, thought that her walking patterns mirrored the one on the individual on January 5, who still has not been identified. And the so called gait analysis, apparently some software determined that the match was around 94% certainty. So I have a lot of skepticism about that story. We can talk about it. But this, as you know, you guys, this took over the Internet over the weekend and is still getting a lot of coverage and attention.

D (23:42)

There's other circumstantial evidence they claim. Right. Like she did leave the Capitol Police shortly after. Like they're offering other. Certainly not. It's certainly not proof 100% by itself. But they do have more than just gait analysis, literally just AI analyzing how they walk, I guess.

C (24:03)

Yeah. Well. And it is interesting to note that she did leave the Capitol Police, like pretty shortly thereafter.

D (24:09)

And it's like she left and there's like a lot of quiet, like they claim, you know, it's all very quiet. But.

C (24:14)

Yeah, but I'm not like, I'm not in a position and Julie, I'd love your feedback on this. I'm not in a position where I even want to name the person because, you know, if allegations like this are wrong, it's deeply unfair to the person being named and having their reputation, you know, sullied basically for, you know, we're not sure, right? We're not sure. But it is a giant mystery. And I think there's two sort of stories going on here at the same time. One is this analysis that Steve Baker did, gait analysis, walking, which is walking analysis. But it's also, it's one of those stories that keeps coming back around because it is so mysterious why it wasn't made the hugest story during January 6th. It should have been at least a top two or top three story that the vice president was almost murdered along with the rnc. There was one at the RNC as well. And some of it, it just doesn't make any sense because it's this glaring kind of outlier and we can't make sense of it. But we all know that there was funny business going on on J6. And this would be a linchpin in the unraveling this narrative that I believe has been sold to us. That doesn't make any sense. There's just too much wrong with it. So what is.

E (25:30)

There's too much?

C (25:31)

Yeah. How reliable are we to take this analysis?

E (25:35)

I think it needs to be met with a very heavy dose of skepticism. And I will explain explain why. But first I want to clarify my position. Number one, I do not believe and have never believed that those devices were set the night of January 5th. Because to believe that you have to believe that neither device was, that both devices went undetected for 17 hours. And which is seems particularly unlikely in the case of the DNC device where not only again, there were two bomb sniffing canine units who were right There you had law enforcement from the Secret Service, Metro Police, Capitol Police, who were right outside of the DNC headquarters numerous times. And again, that device wasn't really obscured. It was right between those two benches, not to mention pedestrians and other dogs and people just walking back and forth. Very strange that that would have sat there for 17 hours undetected. The RNC device, also very sketchy. The woman with law enforcement ties now, she told the FBI that there was no way that that device, that the device was not planted before noon on January 6. She said it had to have been planted between noon and 12:40 on January 6th because she went to that area at noon and didn't see the device there. Now, she is kind of a sketchy story. And I've reported on her. I've got a couple. Right. So that is where the DNC device you could see right there allegedly was sitting there for 17 hours and no one spotted it. There's also some video that indicates that maybe there was a plainclothes police officer who could have said it there around 12:53, 12:55 on January 6th. So I have never doubted that this was an inside job, this was a hoax, it was a stunt, and that law enforcement was probably tied to that. So I want to say that very clearly the problem with this report is, number one, this analysis and investigation took place in a matter of two weeks. That means that they identified this Capitol Police officer, thought that her walking pattern matched the individual. On January 5, they put some sort of video samples together. In the report, in this article on the Blaze, they said that they did not use the FBI video. They used a different sample that was a better quality and speeded up to a normal speed. So we don't even know what the video clip was. Then they also used a video clip of this individual playing soccer. She was a college soccer star and then played, I think, like professional soccer. So they have. They use that as a gait analysis.

C (28:30)

Interesting. But, Julie, you're saying in order to believe this report, you would have to believe that the pipe bomb was planted on January 5th, and you're saying that's not even what you think is true because it would have to sit there for 17 hours. Did they address that in their reporting, Julie? Steve Baker.

E (28:49)

They have not. Okay, but I do wanna make clear, Andrew, this is what the FBI believes as well. They just did another update on that too. They just didn't update on that as well. The problem with this article, we, the public, should be able to see the video samples that they use for the Gait analysis. And we also should be able to see a copy of the analysis they call forensic evidence. So when you're not including those links or that evidence or material in your article, it definitely should raise questions about the veracity of it. Furthermore, people who are asking questions, and I think these are legit, legit, Are being attacked. So I'm not really sure what that is about. This could kind of be simply solved by just giving everyone the evidence that they used to determine this was a suspect.

C (29:37)

Yeah. Please check out Julie's Twitter. It's super important. Twitter follower X follower and her substack. Julie, thank you for making the time for us today. I really appreciate it.

E (29:48)

Thanks, guys. Talk to you soon.

C (29:52)

If you're a listener to the Charlie Kirk show, you know that Charlie built an amazing community through conversation. And that was online, that was in person, it was everywhere.

A (30:01)

We're able to go very viral about what we're able to do on TikTok. Billions and billions of views, but it.

C (30:06)

Was one connection at a time. TikTok offers opportunities for respectful exchanges of ideas and through that, opportunities for community not to talk over each other, but to talk with each other. On TikTok, you'll find creators who teach and encourage. A carpenter passing on his craft, a mom explaining how to make a budget stretch, or a gardener showing us how to bring a backyard back to life. Different stories, but the same drive. The desire to connect and to understand. That's what makes a strong community. A common desire to connect, to find a way forward through respectful dialogue, building trust and feeling heard. Freedom to speak what we know and hear each other out. That's the power of TikTok. It gives everyone a seat at the table, a place to speak, to listen, and to remind each other of what connection really looks like. Conversation build connection and connections build communities. We are still getting blown up by emails here, no pun, with the pipe bomb story, but we're still getting a lot of your emails about the 50 year mortgage. Colleen is worried that we're being swayed by the emails from you guys that seem a little bit more positive than we anticipated. Don't worry, Colleen. I still don't think it's a great idea. I still think it papers over the issue. I will say that it could be a tool. It could be a useful tool for people to get in the market. You still get to write off your mortgage. I think you could make it even better. Candidly. I want to highlight this Lomaz tweet.

B (31:33)

Yeah, yeah, go for it.

C (31:34)

Yeah, let's just go so Lomaz says, and this is image 98, if you want to throw it up, he says, back of the Napkin proposal for MAGA home buying policy. Foreign nationals purchase something like 2% of American homes every year, mostly in luxury areas and much of it in cash. This should come with a steep tax. Such a tax is common elsewhere. Canada, etc. Has a non resident acquisition tax. Use that tax to offset interest payments for first time native born homebuyers. States can should add additional property tax rebates for first time homebuyers born in their state. Married couples buying for their first home should also receive additional interest rate discount. I love all the creativity. Some of these probably have negative side effects that we haven't fully fleshed out. But when you say, oh, you're married, you would probably get marriage fraud at that point. I already have plenty of that. Right, exactly. Ilhan Omar would be first example. But no, I mean, you know, incentivizing good behavior though, and then disincentivizing foreigners straight up. Banning institutional money from being able to purchase these homes. Private equity is another. Is another area of debate.

D (32:41)

You just have to think like, what is our goal here? And it's. As Charlie pointed out, the goal is to create an ownership society where people feel they have a stake in it. And that might mean we need to arrange things with mortgages where it's not an endlessly growing investment vehicle.

C (32:57)

So Blake, let's. We have just so many emails. We want to make more time in the show to get through them. Go ahead.

D (33:02)

Oh, yeah, yeah. Just also I want to apologize because someone said they went to the same high school as Boyz II Men and I am too much of a young person, unlike, you know, our older co hosts.

C (33:14)

Yeah.

D (33:14)

So I thought. I thought Boys was like a 90s movie. It is a band. It is a band. I have never listened.

C (33:20)

Motown, Philly, baby.

D (33:21)

You know, Town Philly. Yeah, not. This is.

C (33:24)

We should go out on.

D (33:25)

This is beyond my. Ken. I just want to apologize on that before I get dunked on massively by everyone here.

C (33:31)

Oh, do you have one? Because I got one that defends you.

D (33:34)

Yeah, well, I got. We have one where M. Robert says, you guys are insane. Boomer here. You guys are insane. Advising young listeners that a 50 year mortgage is any kind of solution and you should be ashamed of yourselves. I don't believe we do that. I believe we've both been quite skeptical of it.

C (33:53)

We are extremely skeptical. My idea is build 10 million new homes, deport illegals, lower legal immigration, which is Gonna take some doing, lower the regulatory burden to build new homes and then play with other financial incentives like writing off your entire mortgage up until the age of 35, prioritizing first time home buyers, banning institutional money, banning foreign investors. Or as Lomas suggested, maybe you put a tax on that because they are buyers. People want to sell their homes, they want to make more money. I get the incentive there. By the way, Williams says, guys, Blake was right about not giving the money away. Like the crazy stupid money blown by Biden, which spiked inflation and has stayed up because of the budget deficit. The tariff money could be put in a sovereign wealth fund and when it gets to a trillion, start to draw from it monthly for government expenses instead of borrowing that amount from the Fed.

D (34:49)

The sad thing is that that's something we could have easily done decades ago. Imagine Norway, for example. Norway's done that. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund from their oil business and they're a country of 5,6 million people and it's in the trillions of dollars. So it's actually a quite large amount of money per Norwegian citizen. And America could have. Now we're broke, but America had a long run where we were a very rich country that could have been pumping resources into that. And you know, the sad thing is that I've read about that. Remember when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security in about 2005 and of course it went nowhere. Everyone was like, oh, don't let Wall street get its hands on my Social Security. If we'd done that, it would have been insanely, spectacularly successful given what the stock market has done since 2005 would have just massively would have fixed every problem.

C (35:44)

Reserve fund that they're, that they're trying to build.

D (35:46)

I don't that feel very worried that, I mean it's like, okay, if you want to have it as a thing. Yeah, I wouldn't have it as a.

C (35:54)

None of this stuff is a silver bullet.

D (35:56)

It would just, I would worry that that would basically just be in. It would feel like a giveaway to people who already have Bitcoin. To me and it's this hugely volatile.

C (36:03)

Asset and it's very volatile.

D (36:06)

It's volatile and.

C (36:07)

But it's probably going to go to.

D (36:09)

America and it's an asset that gets like hacked and stuff.

C (36:12)

Yeah, I mean like I would like to hope that the good people. But you know that maybe that's hoping for too much competency. Can you imagine if our sovereign wealth fund got hacked? You know, you can put them in cold storage and Things like that. There's ways you can, you can address that. Can you guys help us see? This is from Steve. The difference in approximate 30 to 50 or mortgage payment, it will be lower. The payment would be lower, yeah, but the overall cost of the loan would be much higher.

D (36:39)

It would be about looking at its. When I, you know, the AI generated summary when I just asked for a plug in difference, it said if you took a $500,000 loan at a 6.22% interest rate, you would pay 87% more total interest. Instead of $600,000 in interest, it'd be $1.1 million in interest.

C (36:57)

What would the monthly payment be?

D (36:59)

It doesn't say here.

C (37:02)

It will be much lower. I will tell you, the first home I bought was probably against the rules. Dave Ramsey would have been so mad at me, but I made out like a bandit on it. I did an interest only loan on a home I otherwise couldn't afford, sold it after two and a half years and we did well with it because we bought in a really good neighborhood. So some of this stuff is like, you know, there's a general rule of thumb and then there's reality. You know, I'm not saying I was in the majority, but it worked.

D (37:29)

For more on many of these stories.

B (37:31)

And news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.