Emma Vigeland (5:37)

I was born way overperformed, especially as an independent candidate.

Sam Seder (5:40)

And there is like, you know, burgeoning dissent there. I don't know if Mike Flood is in any jeopardy, but it's not like Nebraska is an isolate, is, is its own country. It's indicative of a lot of problems that the Republicans are going to have around the country. Here's Mike Flood being asked by his constituents to justify different aspects of this reconciliation bill, which is going to ultimately kick anywhere from 8 to 14 million people off of Medicaid. It's going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare because of the sequestration as a function of this bill's not being, you know, remotely balanced. It is also going to kick millions off of snap. And we will talk about the specifics or let's let Mike Flood talk about the specifics after he looks through his notes on the bill he voted for.

Luke Goldstein (6:45)

Didn't agree, but we would have gotten so much done if I could do that five times a day in people's living rooms. I only share that because this is the, this is what I do right now because it's what I know how to do. But I got to figure out a way to put my arms around those people that I think just want those answers. I know. Okay, next question.

Donald Trump (7:07)

Next question is I'm concerned about the SNAP benefits being cut and the age of depending being lowered from 11 to 7. Children should not be punished for being born into poverty.

Sam Seder (7:20)

Okay, pause it right there. I want to explain what that question is. The, the age cutoff that this questioner is asking about. This is just a constituent of Mike Floods. The bill is going to expand a restriction as to who is not eligible for SNAP funds. And right now, current SNAP rules most non elderly, non disabled adults without children in their homes cannot receive benefits for more than three months out of every three years unless they document that they're working at least 20 hours per week or prove they qualify for an exemption. Now they're going to expand. Who this applies to up now to now. It applies to people up to the age of 55. If you're over age 55, you are eligible to get SNAP benefits. Without documenting that you're working at least 20 hours per week or that you're disabled, you have some other exemption. The other exemption to this rule was if you are a parent and you have a child under the age of 11, well, they're dropping that down to a child under the age of six. So if you are seven, you are eight, you are nine, you are 10, and your parent, for whatever reason, is not working. You. You go hungry. You go hungry. Here is. So that's just the question. And he's being asked, why did you change this? Why do you have to work until you're 64 as opposed to 56 to be eligible for SNAP benefits? Remember, as you get older, it's tougher to work. It's tougher to find work. If you've lost work, there's wear and tear on your body. You may have a disability that doesn't actually reach the threshold of Social Security disability, but it's going to inhibit your ability to work. And then, of course, if you're 7 or 8 or 9 or 10, you don't really have control of what your parents do. Good.

Luke Goldstein (9:37)

Okay, next question.

Donald Trump (9:39)

Next question is, I'm concerned about the SNAP benefits being cut and the age of depending being lowered from 11 to 7. Children should not be punished for being born into poverty.

Sam Seder (9:56)

Oh, look at. Go through my notes. I know this. Okay, okay, pause it now. I just want to be clear. Also, as this guy looks for his notes on Snap, a literally a teenager who spent 20 minutes reading about this bill would know that SNAP is the second largest pool of money that is being cut in this bill. And this guy has absolutely no idea what this woman who asked her a question is referencing me.

Emma Vigeland (10:27)

Check my notes on the. Whether I took food out of people's mouths.

Sam Seder (10:32)

And he's going to go. And he, he's. He's not even looking for notes on the bill. He's looking for what the talking points are in a generic sense, because you can tell he's not even addressing any of this stuff.

Donald Trump (10:42)

Poverty.

Sam Seder (10:50)

Okay, okay, I have.

Luke Goldstein (10:52)

I knew SNAP was going to be an issue, and it's something that I know. The Lincoln Food bank is here. SNAP During COVID was greatly expanded for good reason. We had a lot of people that couldn't work. We had a lot of different programs that were expanded, inflated, added to. We want to make sure that people that can work are working. And again, our SNAP error rate in Nebraska is nothing compared to the other states. Which means that states like Nebraska under this bill, if enacted in its current form, are going to get a benefit by running a quality program where states that continue to have an unacceptable error rate are going to see a continued reduction in funding. I think when the dust settles on the SNAP program, Nebraska will benefit from having a very well run program. Now, the proof will be in the pudding and I'm sure I will understand everything that's happening. I saw my friends with Lincoln Food.

Sam Seder (12:02)

Okay, pause. I just want to be clear what this guy's answer was as to why you change the restrictions on who is eligible for this. We have a low error rate here. In other words, everybody who's on SNAP right now is. Not everybody, but whatever it is, the vast overwhelming majority of people on SNAP in Nebraska qualify. He doesn't address the fact that they're changing the qualifications. He's implying that somehow Nebraska is going to benefit because other states have higher error rates. And then he's going to see, we got to see how it comes out. The proof will be in the pudding is if, if this starves kids or not and then you know, we're not going to go back in and do anything about it. But we'll know we're going to benefit.

Emma Vigeland (12:55)

So much that it doesn't matter that we just cut the benefit for or lowered the age from 11 to 7.

Sam Seder (13:03)

Yeah, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 year olds, 62 year olds, 63 year olds, 64 year olds. If you're not working 20 hours a week, we know you're just coasting into like, like, like, I mean, who is the per 56 year old? How many of the 56 year olds in this country are like, I haven't, I've lost my job, but I'm living large. And you know what, for those three months out of the year or four months out of the year that I'm, my income is below a certain threshold, I'm going to be able to get $200 a month for food maybe. I mean, he's saying there's very little fraud in the system right now as it stands.

Emma Vigeland (13:55)

There's a fraud by like 9 year.

Sam Seder (13:57)

Olds and his Only response is, well, we got to see how it works out. Go ahead.

Luke Goldstein (14:03)

Having a very well run program. Now the proof will be in the pudding and I'm sure I will understand everything that's happening. I saw my friends at Lincoln Food bank, they have some concerns as they came in here.

Emma Vigeland (14:14)

So I just want to get that one more time. The proof will be in the pudding and I'm sure I'll understand everything I'm.

Sam Seder (14:20)

Sure I'll understand everything that's happening after it happens.

Luke Goldstein (14:24)

Settles on the SNAP program. Nebraska will benefit from having a very well run program. Now the proof will be in the pudding and I'm sure I will understand everything that's happening. I saw my friends from Lincoln Food Bank. They have some concerns as they came in here tonight. I'm going to be finding out how this affects them because they're obviously on the front lines of food people that have food insecurity. I will, I will have to take that up.

Donald Trump (14:51)

Okay, positive.

Sam Seder (14:52)

I will have to take it up. You voted for the bill already. You voted for the bill already. Your friends over at the Lincoln Food bank have already said, hey dude, this is going to screw us. Now he's implying, well, maybe I'll, I'll fix it when it comes back from the Senate.

Luke Goldstein (15:11)

Go ahead of research, sir.

Donald Trump (15:15)

Next, next question is. Okay, next question is, please explain to all sides that Medicaid and Social Security are not being cut and explain why the left keep up that myth.

Sam Seder (15:28)

Okay, positive. So, okay, so there's a myth that Social Security and Medicaid are going to be cut according to this questioner. Now, this bill does not cut Social Security. This bill cuts Medicaid by any estimation by anybody, by $900 billion. Now in the final end, it may not, maybe it'll be a little bit less, but it cuts Medicaid in that amount. Now, Mike Johnson even agrees it cuts that, but he says it's all fraud and abuse. It's all doge. It also cuts Medicare because it will be eligible for sequestration. Cuts across the board. Watch how he addresses the cuts to Medicaid in this bill and I will give you a spoiler alert. He talks about anything but.

Donald Trump (16:25)

And explain why the left keep up that myth.

Luke Goldstein (16:31)

Well, honestly, this is one of the concerns, the Social Security concern of the eight women that I met with at the end of Columbus, their chief concern was that Social Security benefits were being cut. And the reality is the Congressional Budget act of 1974 specifically prohibits Congress from having anything to do to modify, change, reduce any benefit related to Social Security. So of all the concerns that some of you may have, your Social Security benefits being reduced are not one of them. However, you should know that in 2032, 2033, our Social Security trust fund will not be fully funded anymore. And there will be decisions to be made, which I hear people coming up with ideas. I think when you look at the Medicaid changes that we made, we, we did a very good job to avoid making Medicaid changes that affect patient care. And that is something that we will ultimately find out as we go forward. We hear more about it in the Senate. I'll have an opportunity to vote on it again.

Sam Seder (17:33)

There you go. There it is. There's your Medicaid answer. It's not going to change patient care at all, except for it's going to have a lot less patients because millions upon millions of people are going to be booted off of Medicaid. And if a hospital is closed, can they provide worse patient care? I don't think so. I don't think they're providing any. So it's not going to change patient care. It's just going to be fewer patients and fewer places for them to get careful. That's it. And then let me talk about Social Security for like 90% of the answer. I mean, these guys are going out there and they have no. This is a, I don't know if it's a blood red district, but this is not a guy who's. Who, who is in any type of jeopardy of losing his seat to a Democrat. You. And this is, this is his inability to answer these basic questions at a town hall.

Emma Vigeland (18:47)

You want the food bank people looming large, being upset at you at your town halls.

Sam Seder (18:52)

I don't think, I mean, good luck to any Republican in anything less than like an R6 district. Republican in a R6 district. Go do a town hall challenge is what I say. In a minute, we're going to be talking to Luke Goldstein. He is reporter for the Lever Lever, Lever and he's written on the Genius act, which it's going to be fun to see. Well, you know, what was the phrase that he used to we're going to. Well, we'll look and I'm sure we'll figure it out. As to who's getting ripped off by that first couple of words from our sponsors. This one's always an easy one for me. This episode is sponsored by Liquid iv. I don't even have to like, I always have it right in front of me. I mean, not, not the bottle. It's not the bottle, it's the stuff inside it. You're going to have big plans this summer. You're going to be running around. You got to stay hydrated so you can get the most out of your body and live more during these warm summer months. Visit liquid I've.com maximize your summer plans with Sugar free hydration featuring the new Raspberry Lemonade hydration multiplier. Get 20% off your first order with code Majority rep at checkout. I got I don't how much is this? I don't know how much it is, how much water it is in there, but right in front of me as I speak. I've been drinking this stuff I don't know for half a dozen years. I'll drink a bottle or two during the show and I feel the difference at the end of the day. But it's also great. It comes in little packets. You can take it on the plane. If you travel around with it, you put it in your backpack. If you're playing a game, it doesn't matter. True to fruit flavors that keep you hydrated. Find all of your favorite hydration multiplier flavors on their website. Acai Berry, Lemon Lime, Pina Colada or choose from their line of sugar free flavors which has been my go to now. Raspberry Lemonade which is my fave White Peach I also love and Rainbow Sherbet. Break the mold. Own your own ritual. Just one stick plus 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. It is powered by Liv Hydro Science which is basically just a optimized ratio of electrolytes, essential vitamins, clinically tested nutrients that turn ordinary water into extraordinary hydration. Three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink. Eight essential vitamins and nutrients always non gmo vegan, gluten free, dairy free, soy free. Get ready for the summer with extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV. Get 20% off your first order of Liquid IV when you go to Liquid IV.com use the code majority rep at checkout. That's 20% off your first order with code majority rep@liquid IV.com My other big thing that I kick I've been on for the past couple of years is to get rid of all single use plastics in my home. I'm close but the one thing that I have definitely done is I no longer have to carry big jugs of laundry detergent or dishwasher detergent home. How because of Blue Land do you realize that we are eating and drinking roughly a credit card's worth of plastic a week. Microplastics products we use every day are contaminating our water supply, generating hundreds of microplastics that we end up ingesting. Blue Land is on a mission to do something about it. Eliminate the use of single use plastics in the products we reach for the most. Blue Land has clean ingredients. It is totally effective, it is affordable, it saves me a ton of space and super easy to use. They offer refillable cleaning products. I use three of their sprays. They come in tinted bottles that I just refill. Blue, pink, red and yellow. Blue for the windows, pink for the bathroom and yellow. It's like an all purpose. Then you get these tablets, they also are a color coded. You pop one tablet in, you fill it full of water or you do the water first, then you put the tablet in and then boom, you're done. And the tablet, the replacements on these tablets cost like, I don't know, two and a half bucks. Not even. So you save a ton of money. If you buy in bulk or you buy a subscription, you save even more. Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals. They got hand soap, they got cleaning sprays, they got toilet bowl cleaner, laundry tablets, dishwasher tablets. Blue Land trusted in over 1 million homes, including mine. Blue Land has special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com majority. You don't want to miss this. Blueland.com majority 15% off. That's blueland.com majority. Get 15% off. Honestly, great cleaning products doesn't take up a lot of space in your cupboard. Save money, you save. I don't know if you're going to save the planet, but you're going to have less plastics, without a doubt. We'll put the links in the YouTube and podcast descriptions. All right, quick break and Luke Goldstein right back after this. Sa it. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Viglin out today with nothing to do with the Knicks loss. Joining us now, Luke Goldstein, reporter at the Lever. His latest piece is on the Genius act that just passed. Well, they voted for cloture in the Senate a week from yesterday or today.

Josh Zamanski (27:12)

I think it was today.

Sam Seder (27:13)

Welcome back to the. Thanks. Welcome back to the show. Walk us through what the genius act is and then we'll talk about the Democrats who voted for it and why. But walk us through what the genius act is.

Josh Zamanski (27:34)

Yeah, yeah, definitely. Thanks for having me back on. So there's a Few different storylines that are, that are all converging here. None of them are good, unfortunately. So there's crypto and then also the big tech platforms. It's kind of all the same story, though. They have been trying to expand deeper into the financial and banking system and they've basically, you know, kind of hit a bunch of regulatory obstacles along the way. So, you know, they're now turning to Congress to more or less, you know, kind of clear the field for them here and, you know, kind of sort out a lot of the kind of legal difficulties. And then basically the financial risk in the end is going to be sort of put on all of us. So on the crypto side, the industry's biggest problem right now is that they're sort of struggling to get mass adoption of their technology. The plebs are just not understanding the brilliance. And the Trump administration has gotten rid of all of these kind of enforcement actions from the Biden admin, Trump admins pumping up crypto as much as they can, the Strategic Reserve, Trump's own meme coin and such. And the kind of final plank here is, is to have Congress set up what is essentially a very light touch regulatory framework, more really less regulatory than it's just legal, a legal framework to sort of give major investors more confidence that they can start getting into this market, recommend their clients get into crypto. It's a very specific kind of cryptocurrency called stablecoin. And all that means really is it's a little bit more of like a gateway drug to crypto. It's a crypto token that is pegged specifically to a dollar value or could be other currencies, but in this case, obviously the dollar, you know, to some equivalent value. Now, now crucially, if you're issuing stable coins, a stablecoin has to be redeemable to a dollar. But it's not like those institutions necessarily hold the cash on hand to be able to, you know, pay out an equivalent value in stablecoin. They just have to hold a certain amount of assets that they can then liquidate to redeem those stablecoins. And what's going on on the back end with all those assets is where you have, you know, kind of financial experts that are kind of raising a lot of sort of red flags about what may be going on there.

Sam Seder (30:25)

Okay, all right, I want to put a pin in that. The sort of, the assets that back these so called stablecoins. How is, how is like, okay, right now we have Venmo, right? Like, I'm not Actually, I'm just, I'm not wiring money literally, I'm wiring a, you know, I'm subtracting from my bank account and I'm simply adding it to somebody else's bank account. Venmo does that, PayPal does that. Apple Pay does that, you know, Cash App does that. So how is like when we, we're talking about like what this legislation does, I know part of it is it basically sort of puts an umbrella around these things and say, okay, you're not going to be subject to the regulations that we have on, on if a bank did this in some way. So it's, it's, it's almost like edifying a deregulatory structure.

Josh Zamanski (31:30)

Yeah.

Sam Seder (31:30)

Saying we're, we're going to inoculate you from, you know, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we're going to inoculate you from bank regulators. Gary Gensler wanted to basically subsume a lot of this stuff right into the existing banking regulations because it's doing the same thing ostensibly. Where does like the, the stablecoin come in? How is that different than just like I'm sending you a dollar through Venmo?

Josh Zamanski (31:59)

Yeah, it's an important question. It's, it's really not that different. It's just a different kind of digital asset technology. I mean, the industry people say it's better for the kind of efficiency and speed of transactions, but you're right, it's more or less the same. You also do have to still, at least as it currently stands, you have to have a bank deposit that's connected for you to be able to get set up for these for stablecoins. But the crucial thing that you just touched on is that what this legislation is really about is that stablecoins will not be regulated as securities by the securities and Exchange Commission or as commodities by a separate agency, the cftc. It's basically just going to be regulated sort of by, by the Treasury. There's basic, you know, general compliance stuff like anti money laundering, some fraud stuff. But this is even more, you know, light touch than the whole world of shadow banking, which is even a lower regulatory threshold than, you know, the sort of major banks. This is what the crypto industry has really, you know, kind of been, been pushing for for a number of years and been, you know, held up. Now the whole other part of what this bill is going to do is that you have to get issued.

Sam Seder (33:26)

You.

Josh Zamanski (33:26)

Have to get license to issue stablecoins and you don't even have to be registered as a financial institution to do that. You can be a non banking institution such as one of the major tech platforms. And this has been a long sought after goal by the tech industry. So all of the major companies, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Google, they all have their own payment services like you mentioned earlier. PayPal, they kind of have their own versions of this, their payment networks, they just manage various transactions between their users. Apple Pay is probably the most advanced here. They have a giant user base that relies on that service. But Meta has probably been the most ambitious in terms of the project and plan that they have in place. Now from a just very basic level, you can understand why they want to get into payment services. It's an extremely lucrative industry. There's not a lot of overhead costs and you're basically, you don't have to.

Sam Seder (34:31)

Have an invert, you don't have, you don't have an inventory, you just, it's just, it's just fees on what happens. That's it. It's all just paying rent essentially to me, being able to hand over a dollar to my daughter or my son or whoever it is and them saying like, well, thank you for handing it over. We just take a cut.

Josh Zamanski (34:54)

Yeah. For all of our big overhead costs that we have on the back end. Yeah. So no, it's just a fee collection business and you know, that's what they're doing currently. Now if we go back a couple of years ago, Meta put out and even kind of bigger proposal which was we're going to actually get into our own cryptocurrency business. This is 2019. They said, we want to launch Libra, our own internal currency. And the blowback, not just from the public, from, from actual government regulators to that idea was, was really so, you know, kind of tremendous that they ended up not even launching it. They had to kind of walk it back at the last minute. Like, you know, even Jerome Powell at the time said, we don't know about this. You're a, you're a giant platform, you're not a bank. Okay. There's no FDIC insurance for this. We don't really know how this is going to work. Also, interestingly, you know, Trump actually at the time raised his own concerns. Him and you know, Mark Zuckerberg over the years have obviously had their own right.

Sam Seder (36:00)

Unless I can make money off it. And then it's correct.

Josh Zamanski (36:04)

He was anti Bitcoin back then. And then he learned that it was like a great huckster.

Sam Seder (36:09)

I can make my own Bitcoin. Okay. Yeah, well, so exactly the difference between, is the reason why they want to do stablecoins. I mean, like, I'm trying to figure out, like, conceptually, I don't even like fully understand this. It is equivalent to a dollar. It's pegged to a dollar. So I have like a Meta coin or Libra and it's worth $1. Although theoretically it could be like, oh, a Libra coin is worth $2. And you know, you could have a half a Libra coin, it's worth $1. And then I have an Apple coin and then I have an X coin. Can I at one point I imagine to go from an X coin? Because my daughter only accepts Libra coins when she needs money, you know, to buy a sandwich. But I only have X coins. That just generates another fee. Right. I mean, this is all to just sort of like create their own universes where if the money goes outside of that unit and they're charging, presumably they're charging, you know, I go buy a pair of sneakers through with my X coin, they're going to charge the sneaker shop some type of fee. So they want it all to happen within their universe. And if you exit their universe and change your X coins into dollars, God forbid, or Apple coins, they get another fee. It's just, they're just creating, essentially putting us all on a, on a. Unlike a one train track system in every. And then all of a sudden they can charge you for everything because you can't leave it.

Josh Zamanski (37:51)

Yeah, so the, the super app is really the model here. So yeah, the fees are practically speaking where they're going to be bringing in the revenue. But, but the model here really is, you know, it's kind of like the super apps we chat in China where you never have to leave the app, you stay on the platform as long as possible, you do all your social networking, you can go shop and do e commerce and you don't even have to leave. You know, your bank account is, is there as well. The, the platform is your. Is your point is, is your bank. And you know, they get to have a total God's eye view into all financial transactions that are taking place on that platform. They have financial data, you know, they know how to kind of create incentives and inducements to buy their products and such. And at a large scale, this is really something we've never seen before. We actually have had laws in place for hundreds of years that say if you're a commercial business, you're not a bank. If you're a bank, you're not doing the selling and manufacturing of goods, you're Regulated totally separately and for obvious reasons like a financial institution as the kind of bedrock of her whole economy, has all kinds of volatility as we saw in the 2008 financial collapse. We've had this separation in place for very good reason. And the Genius act really strikes at the heart of this by creating this whole new carve out and different regulatory setup that doesn't really distinguish between if you're primarily a banking institution or just a regular, a regular company.

Sam Seder (39:38)

So I understand why the big tech companies want this and the crypto people want it because it is just a way to get you into this notion of tokenized currency. Is that basically it? And, and this is ostensibly going to, and then suddenly like we're also, you can, you can have our Apple coin, but you could also have our, you know, our, I don't know, you know, Granny Smith coin, which is actually more of a crypto thing. And you can use your Apple coin to buy your Granny Smith coin. And it's all part of our features at our, you know, bank essentially.

Josh Zamanski (40:19)

Right. I mean they're kind of, you know, I spoke to some people for this story who are former lawyers and enforcers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was scrutinizing this activity actually very closely. And the way one of them put it to me was it's not going to happen tomorrow if this bill passes. But down the line, these tech companies basically turn into their own kinds of central banks. They're operating their own currencies. Those currencies can be speculated on by outside investors the same way that people measure the asset value of Meta stock or Apple stock. So then there's a value outside of the platform itself. And then platforms like Meta are doing their own monetary policy. Essentially they're making decisions about how much money supply of Duckbucks or Metacoin go into the system. I think for a lot of reasons that would be a pretty terrifying scenario. Then you have rival.

Sam Seder (41:21)

Can they unpeg it? Can they unpeg it from the dollar?

Josh Zamanski (41:28)

Well, you know, I don't think based on the legal framework that's set up right now with the, with the Genius act, but again, I mean, the connection between a dollar and one stablecoin, I think it's a little bit hazier than some people make it out to be. As we've talked before, it's not necessarily one treasury note. Okay. It's not necessarily that you have the cash on hand. It can be this whole range of, of various asset assets that just have to be, you know, the institution has to be able to liquidate to redeem a dollar if there's a bank run or someone pulls out their deposit. But you know, that whole process is, does not have a lot of oversight based on the framework laid out in, in the Genius Act.

Sam Seder (42:09)

And then there's that question of like, what are the assets that actually back this. They have this whole monetary system within this world where I could just buy my food with Apple Coin, I could buy my books, I could buy my pants and my, maybe I could even buy my car ultimately with Apple Coin. And then all of a sudden people, merchants are taking this, or I'm taking it for, for, you know, membership, for the majority report. And then all of a sudden it's like somebody finds out there's nothing behind this. And I mean the value of our money, just to remind people, the American dollar, there's nothing behind it except for the fact that it is the only thing the US Government will accept for taxes. And you have to pay your taxes and therefore it has value because if you do not pay your taxes, you could go to jail. And so our money has value in that way because it is the exclusive mechanism in which you can pay your taxes. But when we're in this world, that could just, the bottom just could fall out.

Josh Zamanski (43:25)

Yeah, no, I mean, I mean that's, that's totally right. And you know, again, as the kind of whole premise here, Meta is not a bank. Like they don't have the same capital requirements that major banks do. Okay? So that's the other major risk that, that Regul regulators are worried about. And again, as I said, this was even Jerome Powell back in 2019 who, who raised these concerns when Meta just entertained the idea of, you know, doing a Libra Coin. And you know, fast forward to today as the Genius act is making its way through, through Congress, these reports come out that Meta has once again started putting out sort of the feelers to do a partnership for their own stable Coin. I don't think it's really a coincidence that that's being entertained at the same time as this bill is now kind of imminently set to pass that would allow them to do just that. I mean, I think this has clearly been part of Zuckerberg's long term ambitions for the platform.

Sam Seder (44:34)

And it was 12 Democrats who essentially voted for cloture in lieu of basically what would have been functionally a filibuster if they had not. And is there any, have you been able to find any consistent like thing across these 12 Democrats that would correlate to this vote. Is there any. Are they. Are they all people who have, like, these are not people who have spent their years, like, regulating banking and have come up with theories about why we can make banking more efficient. Is it. What is the common thread between these 12 Democrats?

Josh Zamanski (45:18)

They're believers, man. They just love the promise of the meme coin, the Almighty.

Sam Seder (45:25)

Are you thinking of the abundance that we're all going to have, or is there some other indication? Could we put a number on how enthusiastic these people are?

Josh Zamanski (45:38)

Yeah, I think you could put it at about US$130 million, ostensibly, which is how much the crypto industry spent overall in the 2024 elections. Obviously that was to both sides. That wasn't just Republicans. The PACs that were affiliated with crypto. One was specifically for Republicans, one was for Democrats. Protect Progress was that when. I think it was about 33 million that they spent on the primaries and general elections. So under the umbrella of Fair Shake, the Fair Shake pac, which was the big spending organization, and I mean, they funneled millions of dollars into frontline Democratic Senate races. You know, Ruben Gallego and Elise Lisa Slotkin were two of the main ones. And you know, they.

Sam Seder (46:35)

$10 million each. $10 million each. And then they also took out Sherrod Brown with about $30 million worth of crypto spending against him. And what was the. Was he on the Banking Committee?

Josh Zamanski (46:50)

That's right. Yeah.

Sam Seder (46:51)

It's weird.

Josh Zamanski (46:52)

He was. He was the guy. He was the guy holding up this bill. Similar versions of it from passing before. I don't know, he had these weird hangups about this guy, Sam Bankman Fried, who defrauded a bunch of investors and is now in prison, but no one seems to really remember him anymore. And they knocked off Sherrod Brown. You still have, obviously some Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, who are really trying to at least throw Santa in the gears of this.

Sam Seder (47:22)

But the reporting was that she got into literally a screaming match with Kristen Gillibrand, who has been a champion of this bill.

Josh Zamanski (47:30)

Co sponsor of the bill, actually. Yeah. So, I mean, the backstory, you know, here a little bit at least, is that all these, you know, the kind of, you know, crypto ally, more centrist Democrats were totally on board with this. And you know, I mean, all the Trump corruption stuff, I do think actually, you know, caused some difficulties for them. It made it harder for them to co sign onto this deregulatory piece of legislation. So an initial vote on cloture for the Genus act actually wasn't successful. And, you know, a group of these These Democrats said we have serious concerns. And it wasn't clear at the time about whether that was them backing away completely from the legislation or just trying to use this as some bargaining position to get some concessions. And Republicans come to the table and they add these sort of cosmetic changes. There's some very minor guardrails against the things that we're considering. But if you look at the Senate Banking Committee's analysis, this is the Democratic staffers, of course, you know, they say that they're basically toothless, they're unenforceable. Tech companies, for example, can just get a waiver essentially from Trump if they want to get into issuing their own stable coins. And that's only for if you're a public company like, you know, a matter or an Apple. If you're a private company like X, that doesn't even apply to you. You don't even need a way basic compliance. Yeah. So there's an argument to be made that this new version, there's an argument, to me, it's actually not even, it's not just not any better, it may actually be worse. It includes this new small provision that would strip away the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority to oversee any of these, you know, stablecoin situations. Yeah, it's.

Sam Seder (49:21)

It's insane. Well, I will tell you two things. One is Republicans just showed us that we can go back in time at any time and use the Congressional Review act on any waivers that are given by the executive. So I look forward to during President Ocasio Cortez's presidency, go back that the Senate and the House will go back on that. But in the meantime, I also want to announce the majority ports stablecoin that is going to, that we're going to be working on. But Luke, we're going to link to your piece that is both in the lever and in Jacobin. Thanks so much for walking us through this. It's worth it for people to call their senators, but the real vote happened last week in terms of that cloture. And now the Republicans have the ability to just pass it with a simple majority, which I'm sure a couple of those people who voted for cloture are going to put their hands off so they can pretend like they weren't involved in it. Luke, thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

Josh Zamanski (50:28)

Yeah, yeah. Thanks so much for having me.

Sam Seder (50:31)

Okay, we're going to take quick break and when we come back, we're going to be talking to who, Russ? Well, Steve Lajoy and, and he is A member of the United Food and commercial worker local 1445. Okay, we'll be right back after it.

Steve Lajoy (51:21)

Sam. It jam. Sam.

Emma Vigeland (53:07)

Back.

Sam Seder (53:08)

We are back. Sam Cedar on the majority Report. Emma Vigland out today again, not a function of the Knicks loss, just a coincidence for her. Want to welcome to the program Josh Zamanski. He is a member of the United Food and commercial workers local 1445 and part of the bargaining committee. And, and you got more members of the bargaining committee right now, Josh, give us a sense of like a. How many workers you guys represent and who you guys are attempting to bargain with.

Steve Lajoy (53:47)

Okay, so we are UFCW Local 1445. We represent 1100 members here at multiple campuses at UMass Memorial Health.

Sam Seder (54:02)

And that's in, and that's in Worcester closure. Both my sisters were born at one of those hospitals in Worcester. And, and so, okay, so you guys, your contract is coming up in a week or so. What, what's been going on.

Steve Lajoy (54:24)

So, Sam, first off, thanks for having us. Secondly, this is about respect for frontline workers more than anything else. We're talking about the people that clean the rooms. We're talking about the folks that deliver the food. We're talking about folks that cook the food. We're talking about technicians, such as surgical technicians. Myself, I work in endoscopy. So these are absolute 100% frontline folks that do, for better or for worse wording here, the dirty work. We are in the trenches. We are not suit and tie folks. We are boots people. We are scrubs people. We have about 50 titles within the union. We go all the way from ebs, which is housekeeping services, all the way up into lab techs. We cover a lot of ground within UMass Memorial Health. We are at three campuses and some satellite areas as well. And the one thing that all 1100 of us have in common is we work hard. And we want to continue to work hard, but we also want to continue to work hard on a fair contract. You know, the organization in general, you know, is, is money conscious with the changing landscape politically, it's made a, a monster impact within these hospitals. And, you know, we get that. But also, we are seeking fairness more than anything else. It's a tough landscape. But this committee that you see behind you, and there's some others are busting their, you know, what's to do, everything that we can to make it happen.

Sam Seder (57:03)

So now UMass Medical Center, I mean, just in, we're talking multiple, I know, multiple hospitals. Having grown up in Worcester, you know, I know the Memorial Hospital and then the, the medical center that's out down, I think Shrewsbury Street, Route 9. And it has grown exponentially in the years and they have. You've got people who've won Nobel Prizes, I believe, in the past couple years or maybe the past decade. And so the, the growth has been exponential. And I imagine it's really more of a question of like, can everybody participate in the benefits that come with that growth?

Steve Lajoy (57:49)

Yeah, that's the thing. Like, benefits are key. You know, UMass Memorial is the largest employer in central Massachusetts. And right now in today's state, we get excellent benefits. When it comes to the health insurance, that is a key perk, if you will. That's why folks want to come and work at UMass Memorial Health. The health benefit in particular is something that is, I hate to use the word Stan, but sacred. You know, I've worked at, you know, I work at the university campus, but I also worked at Marlboro Hospital and when I first started there, I couldn't believe, you know, what that benefit plan, you know, included. It was pretty neat to, you know, to say to my wife, hey, you know, we don't have a deductible on services. You know, it was pretty cool to, you know, have a child and not see an itemized bill for this, that and the other. You know what I mean? So that perk right there is a major, major recruiting. I. You keep using the same word perk here, but it's, it is the main reason why more than half of our folks in our unit work for, work for UMass.

Sam Seder (59:34)

And so what is happening in terms of these negotiations right now? Why is it so difficult to get to a contract? Because I also would imagine that in terms of the community, the having you guys get these perks from, from a, from the, one of the biggest employers, if not the biggest employer in Central Mass, elevates people who are not in the union. People are not in that industry. But across the board, what is it, what's, what's going on with the negotiations? Are they, are they looking to make cuts now too?

Steve Lajoy (60:08)

Well, you know, I don't want to say cuts. What I want to say is they want to streamline things a little bit. You know, when it comes, I'll kind of reverse myself when it comes to like the health insurance, for instance. You know, there's a union plan which me and my, my folks are on right now, and then there's a non union plan that, you know, there is a small section of workers that are non union, but also some Management, they wanted to move us to that plan. And it's salary based about how, you know, like I don't really understand a lot about health insurance, but you know, the breakdown and the payment is all based on what you make. And it could be quite devastating to, you know, the 800 or so that get that plan within our unit to lose that. It would be, you know, some folks and you know, I have a close co worker who recently had a, you know, devastating diagnosis. Nothing, you know, life threatening, but I'll say life changing. And that particular person would have to. She has to get medicine infusions a couple times a year and that would go from costing zero out of her pocket to possibly thousands of dollars. And that's inside. She accesses the medical services where she works. So it's sort of like, you know, it's not, you know, that saying to rob Peter to pay Paul. It doesn't exist if that makes sense. It's robbing Peter to pay yourself. You know what I mean?

Sam Seder (62:21)

It's.

Steve Lajoy (62:22)

It just blew our mind, Sam and I don't know the history behind all of that, but I've worked for UMass Memorial Health for eight years and we've never heard of any change ever. This is the first time. So, you know, your question is really our question. If I can bring it back to that, you know what I mean? We haven't received any like, you know, the question why, you know, we've never got that answer back. And then to answer your other question, a lot of what's happening here is all stalling us. We are motivated to get the contract done. We are motivated to get what we need to help our families. I have a member that works in the university or right now and she, even with her salary, accesses a local food bank in her community. Now there's other issues too that are very important to us, such as temporary workers and travelers taking preferred hours from. From members. There's a traveler and I'm using specific examples because I'm thinking that your listeners and viewers would want to know some specific examples. So we have in that very same. Or we have, you know, there's lots of different shifts, but one of the preferred shifts is like 6:30 to 3 or 6 to 2:30. There's a traveler in that shift right now and I have a member that wants that shift badly. You know, so there's that other things is, is the way that folks are slotted into pay. It's like inequities. I always, when I'm talking about this stuff with, with rank and file members out in hospitals. I'm telling them that, you know, and I might be jumbling up some, some numbers here, but the message remains the same. There's a housekeeper at our Hanneman campus and she may, at this point in time, she may probably have 25 years in. That's a loyal and great employee right there. That's what you want, right? So that particular member today makes, give or take, $20 an hour. Give or take. I don't know exact, but the folks that they're bringing in today make the same. So riddle me this, Sam. How is that fair? You know, from the 20 year member to the one day member, you know, there should be some separation there, some, you know, I don't want to put any terms on it, but it's sort of like investing in us. You know, we're loyal to the hospital. Getting back to my respect point, we want that to come back to us. Show me, show my committee. Show the 1100 members that you want to invest in us. That is such a big deal to us.

Sam Seder (65:55)

So what, so Josh, give me a sense here. What, what can folks listening, particularly those in the Massachusetts area, Central Mass, do at this point to help you guys out?

Steve Lajoy (66:09)

Join us. Join us.

Sam Seder (66:13)

We're going to picking you picketing tomorrow, is that right?

Steve Lajoy (66:16)

Okay, we're picketing now. We're, we're informationally picketing now on, on the university campus and the Memorial campus. You can come out there, hold a sign with us, bring your family, bring your kid, bring your dog. We're there 8am to 6pm every day, including the weekends. We are 100% serious about getting this and getting this right so that folks like the people you see behind me and the 1100 other people can provide for their families without going to food banks, without taking second jobs and without having side hustles. That's what we want.

Sam Seder (67:04)

And can people call? Is there, is it, is it something that would be helpful to you guys if people called or wrote the hospital at all? Or if obviously if people can get out there and, you know, pick it with you and hold a sign, that would be great. But is it, Is, is it helpful for people to call or no?

Steve Lajoy (67:25)

You bet, Sam. And like, you know, we got the power. I mean, and those folks have the power of the Internet behind them, you know, making face, you know, comments on Facebook, on the hospital's Facebook page. The UFCW 1445 has a strong presence on Facebook. Make some comments there. One thing that is also very powerful and this doesn't happen a lot anymore. But the written word, a written letter to the hospital has impact. Any little piece that any folks can offer us is extremely valuable, whether it be five minutes, five hours, five days, any, any support that we can get from local folks. Otherwise other unions, please, that we can't ask enough. We need all the help we can get here. We're very strong, but we also need outside folks and having the outside voice from community members again is very powerful. One experience I had at Marlboro Hospital and this still happens down there, a lot of folks from the communities actually physically write letters and send them in, you know, things like that. And it's so like, we kind of think that that's old fashioned these days. But you know, it, any, any little piece helps, you know, when people write a letter.

Sam Seder (69:01)

I think there's probably an algorithm that they have that it represents more people than even going online is my suspicion.

Steve Lajoy (69:10)

Yep.

Sam Seder (69:11)

Well, we'll, we'll put a link to your Facebook page at Majority FM and in the podcast and YouTube description.

Listener (69:21)

Josh?

Sam Seder (69:21)

Steve. Yeah, I was just going to ask if there's anything you want to add.

Listener (69:24)

Yeah, Real quick. I just want to say that, you know, we've got some big issues on the table. The hospital is trying to, I mean, they're trying to put restrictions and limitations on leave language. They're trying to broaden their management rights so they don't have to bargain with the union when they want to make changes to technology and artificial intelligence. There's some big issues on the table. In addition to that, right now, the amount of money that they've put on the table, this contract, for the entire length of the contract. Right now we're, right now the money on the table for the entire length of the contract is less than they got on year one the last time. I mean, it's significant. These are people, we have people that are, I mean, we've had workers, I believe is one now that are living in their cars and they're coming to work and working at a hospital and yet they can't afford their rent. We have workers that, you know, been here for 15, 18 years that are making, you know, $2 above minimum wage, which is a disgrace working for a hospital. So yes, we want to protect our health insurance. Our benefits are very important to us. But there are big issues on the table that are much larger than just that. I mean, we have, you know, wage inequities that they hire people, rates of pay higher than the people that are training those people coming in that have been here for 20 years, the people.

Steve Lajoy (70:46)

Training them are making lower. Does that make sense, Sam? You know what I'm saying? Does that make sense to you?

Sam Seder (70:53)

Not to me.

Listener (70:55)

I wanted to touch base real quick. And I know you got a time limit here, Sam, so I want to try to keep it quick. But I want to touch base a little bit on those temps travelers and a little bit on per diems. Now we do have some per diems.

Sam Seder (71:05)

We just honestly, you explain to people, because this is a phenomena that particularly got more dramatic after Covid, that because there were, there were, there were shortages for hospital workers around the country. And so a lot of people decided to just basically become contract hires in a way where they would come in on an ad hoc basis. So that's what you're talking about when you talk about traveling, right. And whatnot.

Listener (71:29)

So, so what happens is the hospital doesn't want to pay people what, what the market is they. So they're, they're not marketable. So they're having trouble recruiting and retaining staff. That's one of the problems that we have here at UMass is with recruitment and retention because they've dropped way below the market. And so what happens is now they have these scheduling gaps. So they, you know, back with COVID as you put it, they got this really large pool of traveling workers that they can bring in and they can use to plug in. And it gives them a lot of flexibility with scheduling and it allows them to be able to underscore all the hard working people that are already. The longevity of this company, of this hospital, the people that have already invested their time and dedicated themselves to this community, and it allows them to continue to undercut them and not give them the marketable rates that they, that they deserve. So those travelers, our current language is that they're only supposed to be used to backfill. They're only supposed to be used to fill in for like an open position that's being actively recruited, but they're plugging them in all over the place. So they're taking all the overtime and the extra hours off the table. More importantly, the extra hours that people would rely on to feed their families, they're taking that off the table and giving all those hours to the travelers who are under contract for big money. I'll put it in the perspective this way. We have workers in one job title, our surgical technologists, that make between, you know, 30 and roughly 40, $45 an hour in that pay range, depending on years of, you know, of service, how long they've been here in their raises. So we have people who have been here 50 years that are making about 40, $45 an hour and they're losing extra hours. The travelers that are being paid $110 an hour.

Sam Seder (73:24)

And so from management's perspective, the idea of having these sort of like basically temp, temp hires, I mean that's basically what they are, is that they have a lot more flexibility, they don't have a long term commitment, they don't have to provide them the same benefits and they also don't strengthen the workers because they know these people are transient on some level and they're not going to stay in the city, build routes and build any labor power. I mean that's fundamentally what they're trying to do, is undercut the power of, of, of organized workers there.

Listener (73:56)

Yeah. And that just put it really, really well. So I mean the benefits on that is a big part because they don't pay for travel as any benefits. That's. So that's how they're able to offset that. And they're doing it at the cost of our members. I mean, when, when you talk about.

Sam Seder (74:14)

Slow race to the bottom, isn't it. Because once they use, I mean it's sort of like what Starbucks used to do where they would come in and they would put four coffee shops on a corner, they would starve off the local coffee shop, then they would close up three of those and then they, they were, they, they had the entire market to themselves. That's basically what they're doing in terms of workers essentially.

Listener (74:35)

Right. Sam, let me tell you, you know, on a related basis is we have what's called a per diem. Per diem, that's a non benefited position where they don't have a set schedule. And so it used to be that the per diems were used to backfill, you know, because they had no set schedule. They could plug them into a hole here, plug them into a hole there. What the hospital has done is they've gotten to the point where they're using these per diems as like 40 hour staff people. So they get a per diem that has no budgeted schedule. They're not getting any benefits, none. But they're plugging them in 40, 45, 50 hours a week so they don't have to give them insurance. And what that's doing is that's taken all the extra hours off the table for the existing staff, including part time staff that rely on that to feed their families. And what, you know, I just want to put that into perspective, we have one job title. If you look behind me over here to my right, you see one of our committee members, this is Maria and she works in food services. And in her particular department they have one job title, what's called a room service attendant, which is the people that bring the food up to the, up to the floors, up to the patients. And in a department that we have about 96, 98 there about members in that one job title, we have 58 per diem's that are non benefited, eating up all their extra hours and eating up their overtime. And that's disgusting. The fact that the hospital can do this and feel good about themselves knowing that they're literally pushing people to the, to the welfare line, they're actually putting people onto welfare because they don't want to give them the benefits they deserve, that's just disgusting.

Sam Seder (76:27)

Well, we will put a link to the UFCW Local 1445 Facebook page, others and maybe we can also get a link that people can send an email to the UMass and let them know that, you know, people are watching and you know, at a time, I know in the Worcester area rent housing has gone up precipitously in the past 10 years or so and you know, everybody's dealing with general inflation these days in particular, but it really does feel like this is part of a long term race to the bottom that the hospital really shouldn't be part of. Anything else you guys need to say before we go?

Listener (77:22)

Sam, I want to thank you for that, but I also want to just ask you to put out to your listeners, to the people viewing this podcast that, you know, just them coming down and spending a few minutes down here, just stopping in and letting our workers that are out there on the line, letting them know that they support them, that they back them, you know, that, you know, that is huge. And I want to add to Josh's point before about writing letters. They can also contact the Telegram, the Worcester Telegram and you know, do like letters to the editor. I know, you know, in today's digital world they're not the same but you know, they can contact the telegram and really put a little pressure on them to, to, you know, put a couple articles in, in their media and reach out to the hospital. That way any support that we can get is huge. And right now we absolutely need everything we can get to help these guys, you know, cross this hurdle. You know, the union's trying to do what's best for our workers, for our members. And you know, the hospital is really, to paraphrase Josh from before, it's about respect and they're not getting any respect right now. But it's also about value and our workers don't feel valued by this organization at all. With that, I'm going to relinquish this back to my committee. Thanks, Sam.

Sam Seder (78:46)

All right, well, thank you, Steve and Josh, thank you. And all of you back there, thanks and good luck and hopefully we'll have some people come down there, may bring a pizza or two for folks and send some letters in that area. I know we have a decent amount of listeners in, in and around Worcester. I certainly hope so. But I appreciate it guys and good luck and we'll follow along on what's going on.

Steve Lajoy (79:18)

Sam, thank you. We, we're grateful, we're grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. So thank you.

Sam Seder (79:25)

All right, so long, guys. All right, folks, we will put links to the UFCW local 1445. I mean, understand the dynamic that's going on. There is one that's playing out all across the country and not just in hospitals. I mean the idea of essentially trying to, you know, bring in temporary workers, which is essentially what these traveling nurses, you know, you know, and hospital personnel are. You bring in people who are transient, you will pay them higher wages but not give them any long term benefits. It undercuts the, the strength of, of local workers. Maybe you could break the union. Maybe you slowly get less and less people on the union. Maybe you can get them to have less benefits and over time you don't have to pay those traveling workers as much anymore. And that's the way you like slowly press down on, on workers, power workers earning workers, benefits, all of that. And that's what's going on there. Make no mistake about it. That is what is going on there. And that is a dynamic we see across the board. So if you're in the neighborhood, even remotely, head down there. You know what we'll do too? Anybody who shows up there with a pizza, send us a picture of you there@mainvancereporters gmail.com free membership. Free membership. We'll send a T shirt. Oh, send a T shirt. And we're not going to do it. For every pizza box you break, each trip will get you a T shirt.

Emma Vigeland (81:21)

Take, take six different pictures after buying six pizzas.

Sam Seder (81:28)

Very close up pictures.

Emma Vigeland (81:29)

Waste, fraud and abuse.

Sam Seder (81:30)

All you see is like just like cheese and then a pepperoni and then no, you gotta like pull back, don't.

Emma Vigeland (81:37)

Do it by the slice. Waste front. Abuse.

Sam Seder (81:41)

Put in majorityreportersmail.com and put in UMass picket. UMass picket. And we will, we will hook you up. Honestly, if I spent another probably like half an hour talking to those guys, it would take me a week to get rid of my, my accent relapse. I mean total. I already, I felt it happening already. Like when I was talking to him. I already felt it happening. Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member@jointhemajorport.com if you'd rather a free membership than a T shirt, we could do that too. You know, your choice, pick them up. It's your support that keeps this show going. You can become a member@jointhemajorityreport.com also don't forget just Coffee. Fair Trade Coffee. It's a co op. It's in Madison, Wisconsin. They are the oldest sponsor of this program. Even predate this program back in the break room live days. I've been working with them for almost 18 years. Coffee's great. You can get the Majority Report blend, you can get the WTF blend, but you can also get a bunch of other blends and you get single origin. But the thing about the, the just Coffee that is great. And we have had many, many coffee companies come to us over the, over the years wanting to us to sponsor them and got offered at one point like even branding our own coffee. The reason why we've stuck with Just Coffee is because A, they're a co op or maybe B they're a co op but A, they, they started their coffee business to support farms in places like Chiapas and ultimately in on the African continent to support the farmers and they work with their farmers. If there's bad, there's bad weather one year or the coffee, the crop is like not as good. They work with them and figure it out and they, you know, Fair Trade, you know exactly what you can follow along and see what like the batch has been through and stuff like that. So just coffee.coop use the coupon code majority get 10% off. Matt left Reckoning had a big finale.

Emma Vigeland (84:27)

To Matt May over at Left Reckoning where I was doing Left Reckoning because David was finishing up his book on populism in the South.

Sam Seder (84:35)

Do you do that every year, Matt May?

Emma Vigeland (84:37)

No, just the years that David is finishing up a book and but I had a really huge banger of a show with Representative Khanna from California. We talked about Doge and Gaza and abundance and stuff like that. And also the Truman Committee. He, he apparently like me is A fan of Harry Truman going after contractors during World War II and making it political. So that would have been the real department of governmental efficiency instead of letting a contractor that probably scams the government go lie about the government for. For months. So we talked about that.

Sam Seder (85:12)

Also.

Emma Vigeland (85:13)

Really great conversation with Straighter Aid. Who is the young lady who was on the whatever podcast and I believe the sauce cast on valuetainment asking Dave Rubin why he won't debate you, Sam. So we talked about the sort of process of that and her also challenging destiny at an event that sort of brought her to people's attention and the different sort of streamers out there and the weird new brave new world of online media. So check that out. Great show last night. Patreon.com left reckoning. I believe we'll have a JFK update with Jefferson Morley this weekend.

Sam Seder (85:52)

The only thing I could think about throughout that entire promo is what if it was April? Would you call it at April?

Emma Vigeland (86:00)

Well, my middle name's Albert, so I'd call it Albert April.

Sam Seder (86:03)

What about. What about June?

Emma Vigeland (86:07)

I'd be stuck then.

Sam Seder (86:08)

All right. Oh, Kennedy's brainworm says you missed the opportunity for hashtag Matt Mayhem.

Emma Vigeland (86:19)

That's a hat on a hat.

Sam Seder (86:22)

Good point, folks. See you in the fun half three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second.

Luke Goldstein (86:52)

Hold on.

Sam Seder (86:53)

Hold on for a sec. Emma, welcome to the program. Fun hack.

Luke Goldstein (87:00)

Matt.

Emma Vigeland (87:01)

Boom.

Sam Seder (87:02)

Fun pack.

Listener (87:03)

What is up, everyone?

Sam Seder (87:05)

Fun hack. No M Key.

Josh Zamanski (87:07)

You did it.

Sam Seder (87:08)

Fun pack. Let's go, Brandon.

Josh Zamanski (87:10)

Let's go, Brandon.

Sam Seder (87:11)

Fun pack. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

Josh Zamanski (87:21)

Fundamentally false.

Donald Trump (87:22)

No.

Sam Seder (87:22)

I'm sorry. Women's talking for a second. And let me finish. Where is this coming from? Dude? But. Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A. Yes. All right. Me.

Luke Goldstein (87:36)

Is this.

Sam Seder (87:37)

Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you.

Josh Zamanski (87:46)

Is this me?

Sam Seder (87:48)

Hello? Is this me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound every single freaking day. What's on your mind? Sports.

Steve Lajoy (87:57)

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

Sam Seder (88:00)

I'm going to go Skyline libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says of course.

Donald Trump (88:05)

Gobbledygook.

Sam Seder (88:06)

We nailed him. So what's 79? 21 challenge.

Steve Lajoy (88:10)

Man, I'm positively quivering.

Sam Seder (88:12)

I believe 96.

Steve Lajoy (88:13)

I want to say.

Sam Seder (88:14)

8572-2103-5501-1389 11.

Emma Vigeland (88:19)

For instance.

Sam Seder (88:20)

$3,400.

Donald Trump (88:21)

$1900.

Sam Seder (88:22)

5 4. $3 trillion.

Listener (88:25)

Sold.

Sam Seder (88:26)

It's a zero sum game. Actually.

Donald Trump (88:28)

You're making me think less.

Sam Seder (88:29)

But let me say this.

Josh Zamanski (88:32)

You can call it satire.

Steve Lajoy (88:34)

Sam goes satire.

Sam Seder (88:35)

On top of it all. My favorite part about you is just.

Josh Zamanski (88:38)

Like every day, all day, like every.

Luke Goldstein (88:40)

Me, do it without a doubt.

Sam Seder (88:42)

Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

Donald Trump (88:52)

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

Sam Seder (88:54)

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know. But you should know, people just don't.

Emma Vigeland (89:04)

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

Sam Seder (89:06)

I have a question. Who cares?

Emma Vigeland (89:10)

Our chat is enabled, folks.

Sam Seder (89:12)

I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. 2 o' clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous. Like, what is wrong with you? Love you. Bye. Love you.

Josh Zamanski (89:36)

Bye.

Sam Seder (89:37)

Bye.