RADIO

How the left is financially PUNISHING responsible Americans

Thanks to today’s record-breaking inflation, it’s no surprise that middle class families are MASSIVELY struggling to pay for everyday expenses. So, why then are our tax dollars going to pay for things like gender studies, Glenn asks. Why are welfare checks being sent to migrants on our southern border, when Americans are struggling at home? Why is President Biden PUNISHING responsible Americans who did NOT attend colleges that they could not afford? And why are the politicians we elect to do one thing, instead doing the OPPOSITE when in office?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, they will get around the Constitution, eventually. I think they're going to declare a national emergency. A climate emergency. Or a banking emergency. Or an energy shortage emergency. One way or another, emergency shortages are coming. And that's how you really make an end run around Congress, and the Supreme Court. Let me give you this story from CBS. Raising children is expensive for the United States. And families are feeling the pressure. More than 12.5 million in the US live in poverty. Even middle class families are increasingly struggling to pay for everyday expenses. Yeah. Why is that? The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published a report using 2015 data, that estimated expenses of child rearing from birth through the age 17, in a middle income family of two adults and two children. It is 233,610, with inflation. That means it's 286,000, in 2022. But adjusting for inflation, they say, may not be enough. Child care costs have actually outpaced inflation. In 2020, childcare expenses rose 5.03 percent year after year, compared to the annual inflation rate of just 1.2 at the time. The fact that is sending an infant to day care in many places across the country could be significantly more expensive than in-state public tuition to send them to college. The United States has been very reluctant. Very conservative when it comes to these kinds of family policies. One of the issues with child care is the U.S. is a patchwork system. Huh. We have programs that fully subsidize eligible children. We have tax credits that subsidize a portion of child care costs for higher income families. We also have block grants for states to help them expand access. The problem with all these systems is that with this multitude of approaches, we're just now getting close to anything universal or affordable. Okay. So here's CNBC saying, really, we need Pre-K money. We need more money. And we can't solve this problem, state by state. It has to be solved at the federal government.

Again, another crisis the government can take care of. Well, I don't know about you, but I get a little tired of working for everybody else. I pay my fair share. I pay more than my fair share. And I usually -- you know, I've never had a problem paying my taxes. Because I love the country. And I'm willing to help others.

I just think that helping others is not doing gender studies. I think helping others is not enforcing the idea that our public schools have to have open bathrooms with all of our kids. And hide information from all of us parents. No. Sorry.

At what point do you start saying, I'm not really building represented here?

Well, you can't, because we have representation. You vote for your representative. That's one of the problems with us. Is we'll hire somebody, but they'll do the exact opposite, usually. Now, there's a great argument in the Federalist about the student loan bailout. Because we saved and behaved responsibly, President Joe Biden will punish us. Nor is his plan fair to those who don't go to college. We put five children through college. One still is attending. We saved up. We never took out any loans. We didn't want our kids burdened with debt. Our kids went to William and Mary. Mary Washington. Dartmouth. John Hopkins. And the university of Pennsylvania. So far, the total cost of these colleges has been well more than $600,000. Well, last week, Biden forced taxpayers to assume nearly $6 billion in federal student loans, for 60 -- for 560,000 borrowers. News stories announced the decision on forcing taxpayers to pay off the loan for others. And it appears delayed until closer to the election. While some debt is likely to be paid off by taxpayers, Democrats will probably keep their other borrowers locked in politically by continuing to freeze repayments and warning that Republicans will end this. Should my wife and I have just borrowed all of this money and sent our kids to public universities. If so, we could have $600,000 to spend on all sorts of other things. Nicer cars, houses, fun trips, or we could have given that money to our children and grandchildren when we die. To save to pay for a family's college bills, we always purchased used cars. And, you know, and we were a year old when we drove them for years. My Ford Taurus lasted 16 years, more than 225,000 miles.

My Pontiac transport for my wife, lasted almost as long, before Russ meant that it could no longer pass the state's yearly safety check. So because we saved up and behaved responsibly, President Biden will punish us. Those who didn't save and worked 90, 80-hour weeks, who spent their money on other nice things, instead now we are paying off and picking up their tab for their kids' education. How exactly is that fair?

Nor is it fair to those who don't go to college. This is a great article that you really need to read at the Federalist. But I think this is the way a lot of people will feel. As we have shortages of money, how are people going to deal with the process that we are spending welfare checks, and we're selling -- sending food stamps down to the border? When we have hungry people here. By the way, the direct impact of the -- the fed, is going to be felt again today. They are -- they are raising the rates of interest, so anything connected to the interest rates. That's credit cards. Adjustable rate mortgages. Or, you know, fixed rate mortgages. That you haven't secured yet. All of this will change. Today, and could change directly. They're trying to cool the economy. Which means, they're trying to get you stop buying stuff. And it's pulling us into a recession. If business investing and consumer spending is slowed too much. But they're going to get it right this time. So what it's going to do, is it's going to make borrowing more expensive for companies. Higher costs of capital. The valuation of the stock market is going to get compressed. We've already seen a lot of that happening right now. But this will be increased drag on your 401(k), or anything that you have, that's a retirement fund. And the problem is, is that we're going up, three-quarters of a percent. Stu, how much was it for each point, just on the federal budget's borrowing? Do you remember?

STU: Yeah. Each percentage point costs us another $400 billion per year, which is the equivalent of adding a new Defense Department every year.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. By adding a point?

STU: Uh-huh. One point. And it's something like $4 trillion over a decade. And it gets to a point where just the interest of -- on our national debt, becomes the focus of our entire budget eventually. I mean, we're not that far away from this becoming really a society that just repays at the time, rather than actually does things.

GLENN: All right. Back in just a minute.

RADIO

Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

The far-left proved once again it’s members care very little about ‘peace.’ In fact, some reactions from leftist, blue checkmarks on Twitter show just how ANGRY they can be…especially when it comes to the Supreme Court preserving the Constitution and returning rights to the STATES. Glenn reads several of their reactions to SCOTUS' recent decision that further protects the Second Amendment...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, I just wanted to go through some of the blue checkmark responses from yesterday. Because, gee. I just -- I just don't -- I just don't know what else to say. They were so right on target. Now, that's -- that's a joke. I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it actually target. You know, like Sarah Palin actually meant it. Alicia Sultan. Or Ashia, or whatever her name is. She says, God forbid. Listen, you're listening right now to a guy who is in the Radio Hall of Fame. I am so good at what I do. I don't even need to know how to pronounce names. I don't have to. They were like, this guy is like a radio god.

Yeah, but have you heard him?
Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.
Anyway, she said, God forbid, someone you love gets killed by gun violence. I second that. Second Amendment fetishizing will never bring that back, or a make that loss easier to bear. Yeah. I agree with that. I mean, hang on. Let me just take the ball out of my mouth here. I have this fetish thing with the Second Amendment. It is hot. Too many people believe that unfettered access to guns will never hurt someone they love, until it happens. Okay. I don't know what your point is really here. Marion Williams says. People will die because of this. And to be very clear, now, listen to this argument.
To be very clear. They're not doing this to protect the Second Amendment. They're doing it to protect the primacy of property rights.
Well, gosh, that's a good reason to do it too, I guess. Huh. I didn't even think of the property right part. But thanks for pointing that out, Marion. Neil Cattial says, it's going to be very weird if the Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week. Saying it should be left to the states to decide, right after it imposed a constitutional right to conceal and carry firearms. Saying, it cannot be left to the states to decide.
Neil, here's what you're missing, dude.One is actually in the Constitution. It's called the Second Amendment. That tells the federal government, and the states exactly what they can and cannot do. What government cannot do. There is no right to abortion. I -- show it to me. Show it to me. When you can show it to me, I will change my argument. That, when it's not in -- I'll talk slowly for you, Neil.
When it's not in the Constitution, then, there's this part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's -- it's -- just look for the number ten. Okay? And that says anything that's not specifically in the Constitution. That goes then to the states. Yeah. Look at you. You're going to read something.
Jill Flipuffock says -- says the kind of people who desperately want to carry concealed weapons in public, is based on a generalized interest in self-defense are precisely the kind of paranoid, insecure, violence, fetishizing people, who should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public. Okay. So let me get this right.
If you want to carry one, you're the kind that shouldn't carry one. So, in other words, when -- this is right. Jill, my gosh, my whole world is changing. Thank you for this. Now I understand when Martin Luther King went in and said to the state officials, hey. I need to have a concealed carry permit. He's exactly the kind of guy, you Democrats didn't want to carry a gun.
Yes! Jill, thank you for that enlightenment. David Hogged says, you're entitled to your opinion. But not your own facts. And like your own facts, you're not entitled to your own history. That's exactly what the Supreme Court decision is. It's a reversal of 200 years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed. David, David
Have you read a book? Come on. Do you know anything at all -- name three founders. Can you do it? Right now, think. Go. Can't do it, David. 200 years.
Our -- the only times -- the only times in our history, and you wouldn't know this. Because you bury all the left. Buries the Democratic history.
The only time that we have any kind of history, where we're taking guns away from people, is when the government is afraid of those people. When the government gets really, really racist. Okay? That's why the Indians, yeah. That's why they're living on reservations now. Because we took away their guns. Yeah. Yeah.
That's why after the Civil War. And before the Civil War, slaves could not have guns. Why?
Because they might defend themselves. And then, after they were freed, oh, my gosh, the Democrats freaked out. Those freed slaves, will have a way to protect themselves. And they got it done through all kinds of laws, kind of like what you're doing now.
Thank you, David for writing in. You're special. March for Our Lives. Blue checkmark said yesterday.
The court's decision is dangerous. And deadly. The unfairly nominated blatantly partisan justices put the Second Amendment over our lives. No. I -- I -- may I quote the Princess Bride? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Okay?
Second Amendment is there, to protect our lives. To protect our property. And to protect our freedom.
I just want to throw that one out. The blood of American people who die from needless gun violence will be on their corrupt hands.
Okay. Wahajit Ali (phonetic) said, let's have a bunch of black, brown, and Muslim folks carry large guns in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I know the Second Amendment advocates will say that's great and encourage it. Because American history proves otherwise. We might get gun control. But we would also get a lot of chalk outlines.(laughter)Mr. Ali, you are so funny.
See, what you fail to recognize is that all of the people that you say are racist, aren't racist.
There are racists in this country, a lot of them seem to come from the left. You know, like the socialist Klan members. Or the socialist Nazi members. You see what they have both in common?
Yeah. Democratic Party. Anyway, Mr. Alley, if someone wants to carry a gun. And they're a Muslim. I have absolutely no problem. You're brown, you're pink, you're polka dot. You have covid and you're not wearing a mask. Or you don't have covid, and you're wearing 20 masks. And you want to carry a gun. I'm totally fine with that. Now, if you get a bunch of people. And, again, I don't care what color they are. Marching down my neighborhood, with large guns. Yeah. I am going to call the police because that's unusual.
What are you doing? We're just marching with our guns. Why in my neighborhood at night?
None of your business. Does Kavanaugh live around here? See, there's a difference. There's a difference. Right-wingers can freak out about nullification or packing or whatever.
No one cares. You broke all the norms of decency, democracy, and fairness. Oh, my gosh. Oh, wait. Wait.
This is from David Atkins. He has a great solution. At the end of the day, California and New York are not going to let Wyoming and Idaho tell us how we have to live in a Mad Max gun climate hell.
Oh, my gosh. David, let's break some bread, baby. Let's come together. Yeah. All right. Let me do my best Marianne Williamson.
Yeah. Yeah. Because we can come together. What you just said is the point of the Tenth Amendment. California and New York, I don't want to live like them.
You don't want to live like us. So let's not. Let's not. However, there are ten big things. And I've heard they've added to these. But there are ten big things, that no government in the United States of America, can do. Now, you want to change that, let's change it. Because what's so crazy, is there's this thing called the amendment process. You want to change the Constitution, you don't -- what -- all norms of decency. Democracy and fairness. You don't break those.
You want to change those amendments. You can do it. All you have to do is go through the amendment process. And then if you say, everybody has to have a pig on their lap. You get the states to vote for that. Put it on the amendment. You have it. Now, probably there would be another amendment that comes later. That says, hey, the big in the lap thing is really, really, stupid, and I think America lost its mind temporarily. So we're going to scratch that one out. From here on out, no. Absolute must have a pig on your lap kind of loss. Okay?
But both of those would be done through the amendment process. That would be doing it the decent way, the fair way, and the Democratic way. But David, you are cute. When you think, you're cute. Tristan Schnell writes in, when American service members die oversees, their caskets are brought to Dover Air Force base to be displayed and mourned. No, they're not displayed. I don't know if you've noticed this. But we try not to display the dead. But when Americans die because of gun violence, their caskets should be brought to the steps of the Supreme Court. So the justices can see what they've done. Yeah.
Tristan, I like that. Why don't we take every baby that's been aborted, and put them in a bucket. I mean, we're going to need a big bucket. Because there's millions of those.
And let's dump them, on the front steps of the Supreme Court. So they can see what they've done. Wow!
I got to thank all the blue checkmarks. Because you've really turned me around.

RADIO

Why the Fed’s ‘MATH PROBLEM’ may result in MORE inflation

Yes, it’s possible for our economy to suffer from extremely high inflation while certain goods, products, and services experience DEFLATION as well, Carol Roth — a financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business’ — tells Glenn. The Fed actually is TRYING to deflate the economy, Roth explains. But while they’re saying one thing, the Fed’s current policy shows the exact opposite. And that ‘math problem,’ Roth says, is what could cause our economy to experience even more, ‘prolonged’ inflation. It’s a ‘dire situation,’ and there seems to be ZERO leadership willing to fix it…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not possible to have super high inflation, on some products. And super low deflation. Prices that are -- that are crazy.

Because they -- nobody is buying them, in other categories. Is that possible to have both of those?

CAROL: Yeah. I think that the best analogy for that would be kind of the '70s. And something that looks for stagflation. Where the economy stagnates. And it stagnates, like you said, because all the money has been sucked up in a couple of categories. And there really is a lot to go around in other places. There's not a lot of investments being made, and what not. But we still end up having high inflation. And we are certainly, a lot of people feel like we're in that sort of stagflation, you know, arena, right now. And it can continue on the trajectory. But you have to remember in terms of deflation. I mean, that's what the Federal Reserve is trying to do. They are actively trying to deflate, you know, not just the bubbles and assets, but they're trying to deflate spending, to cool off the economy. That's why they're shutting off their balance sheets. That's why they're raising their interest rates. It's meant to cool off demand. And that's the math problem that I keep talking about. They keep saying, oh, the consumer. And businesses are going to save us from a recession. But at the same time, the policy is meant to do the exact opposite. The policy is meant to make it, so that people aren't able to spend in the same way. So those two objectives are at odds with each other. And so I do think, that we could end up in this prolonged period, like you said, where the inflation hasn't quite gotten under control. Especially since we have so many supply demand imbalances in our economy. We have a labor imbalance. We have a food imbalance. We have an energy imbalance. And we have a commodity imbalance. And that's not going to it be solved by any monetary policy. That requires real action. And we don't have leadership, that's willing to lead or frankly do anything.

GLENN: So we have -- as I see it, we're looking at a situation. Again, I'm going back. And please, correct me where my thinking is off. But I'm going back to the Great Depression. So people were afraid. They held on to their money. They spent what they had to, and what they could afford. But nothing else.

That caused the labor market to shoot out of control. To -- to about 25 percent unemployment. Because the factories were closing down. Because no one was buying anything, from the factories. Which then, in turn, made FDR say, we're going to build the Hoover damn, to give people jobs. But it was all the government money, which would have just caused more inflation, if I'm not mistaken. Had it not been for the -- and I hate to say it this way. But the saving grace of the Second World War. Right? Were we in a death spiral? I mean, the war was definitely a different kind of reset. And I think a lot of the logic that you're talking about makes sense. If consumer sentiment is really important. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people don't feel confident, they don't go out and spend. They're worried about their inflation. And being able to feed their family. And get to work. They aren't going to spend -- I think there are a couple of things that we have that are different. And it's not necessarily better for the average American. So I just want to be clear. That I'm on your side, and I'm not saying that it's better.

But because of this huge supply and demand imbalance. We have two jobs available for every person looking. The likelihood is that that probably contracts to be, you know, a better match, than having massive unemployment just because of that scenario is going on. And we also have a whole slew of Americans, who are doing -- you know, have done very well. They have been the beneficiaries of this giant wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street. So I think we're going to have a lot of, you know, different outcomes. You know, that inadequately, that's been driven by government policy. And that's never a good thing. Because, you know, the social unrest that comes with it. And rightfully so. Because, you know, these policies have really put the middle class. The working class. And in some cases, the lower class, at risk, to the benefit of the people on the inside. And so the numbers on average, may not show how dire the situation is. And so they'll be able to spend. And say, oh, everything is great. And the consumer is doing well, when people are really struggling. And, you know, that's going to be when we continue to just be furious. And, you know, demand something be done about that.

GLENN: Carol, thank you so much for everything that you do.

She's just issued a new paper. A new piece for TheBlaze. What the heck is going on in bitcoin. And you can find that at TheBlaze.com. TheBlaze.com. What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.

Shorts

Glenn: I didn't think Roe v Wade would end in my lifetime

GLENN: We just have to take a minute, and just think of the miracle we just witnessed.

There isn't a soul, not one soul, in this audience that thought that this would happen. Like this. This fast.

I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.

BEHIND THE SCENES

'This is how I spend my vacation': Glenn gives behind-the-scenes look at new radio theme recording

If you have ever wondered where Glenn gets the music for his radio show or assumed he used pre-made stock music or cheap computer software, now you know, it’s the real deal. Glenn's vacation technically started this week, but that couldn't keep him away from his natural habitat—the recording studio—where he spent several hours working on an updated radio theme track with pro composer Sam Cardon and Millennial Choirs & Orchestras (MCO).

Glenn was looking for something that sounded more urgent, and from the preview Glenn shared, it sounds like the creative team nailed it. The epic score sounds like it would easily feel at home in a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars film.

The new theme will be on air at a future date, but if you can’t wait, make sure to watch the video for a sneak peak!