RADIO

‘WAKE UP’: This HUGE FBI robbery proves America is in DANGER

In 2021, the largest robbery in U.S. history occurred. It included a massive vault, the theft of 86 MILLION dollars in cash and assets, and several armed participants. You’ve probably never heard this story — at least, the way Glenn tells it — which is exactly what the FBI wants. But Glenn gives you all the details, using this incidence to show you that we’re now living in a different kind of America. Our freedoms and rights are in incredible danger, and now is the time we must take a stand and fearlessly speak out against the countless government crimes happening every day...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This robbery happened in 2015. So this is a recent robbery. And we all know now, who did it. Who broke in, and stole 86 million dollars in cash and assets?

They came in with guns blazing, picked some of the locks of the safety-deposit box, broke open others. But they took everything in the vault. $86 million. Largest in U.S. history.

Have you heard about it? You haven't heard about it, Stu

STU: No. Really I only heard you tease about it from the last couple of days. That's the only time I've ever heard of it. And I followed --

GLENN: Okay. You actually do. You actually do.

It's just been framed differently.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: This is the break-in of the vault. Of Beverly Hills by the FBI. And that's why no one is going to jail for it.

But they should. Let me give you the full story here. FBI began investigating a U.S. private vaults store in Beverly Hills. And what they did, is they were watching people -- they were watching this vault. And somebody on the FBI, just noticed, that there were cars than coming in from Illinois. And going in, and putting things in a vault. But Illinois is a big drug -- big drug state.

So there's evidence number one. Cars were going in, and out. That had Illinois plates.

STU: Yeah. That's not good evidence.

GLENN: Not good evidence. Not good evidence.

STU: I assume there's more to come that's better than that.

GLENN: Not really. I'm just looking at --

STU: Cars with Illinois plates.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Cars are coming in with the Illinois plates.

Oh. And -- and there were many of the customers that were using rental cars to come.

And of these rental cars are, of course, associated with drug traffickers, because if they smell marijuana, well, they don't -- you know, you can say, I don't know. Well, I wasn't smoking marijuana. I never had marijuana in the car. It's this rental car. Now, remember, in California, marijuana is legal, okay?

So you had those two things going for the FBI. So they decided to go in. They went to get a warrant. They had six warrants. Five of which, were rather straightforward, and pertained only to the business, and the business owners.

However, according to a study now from the LA Times, the sixth warrant, signed by a U.S. magistrate judge, Steve Kim, in 2021 authorized the agents to seize business equipment from the store, including 1400 safety-deposit boxes, located in the store.

Even though, the agents did not know the identity of the box owners, or have probable cause, to suspect, that the owners of those boxes, were involved in any kind of drug trafficking or money laundering scheme. The government didn't know what was in those boxes. Didn't know who owned them.

What, if anything, these people had done. Because they didn't even know the people.

So 400 customers had their goods, taken from this safety-deposit box.

This is unprecedented. Never happened before. Eighty-seven million dollars. Now, according to court filings, the FBI insisted on the affidavit, that the warrants authorized the seizure of the nest of boxes themselves, but not the contents.

On the warrant itself, signed by the judge, this warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety-deposit boxes.

However, the FBI didn't care. And they opened up every single one of those boxes, and took the ill-gotten goods.

The FBI later said, it's not under -- we have no obligation to inform the judge how later actions such as criminal investigations against box holders or forfeiture of box contents would play out. So he specifically said, you have no right to open up any of those boxes.

They did. Because they probably had probable cause, but we don't know what the probable cause was.

We have no idea. Because they didn't file it. And when they had probable cause, it was license plates from Illinois. And they were using rental cars.

Seven hundred customers -- I'm sorry, I thought it was 400. It's 700 customers, affected by the FBI raid. Nine were referenced by the FBI in the affidavit.

Thus far, no one has gotten any of their stuff back. None of the customers have been charged with any crimes. Not a single customer out of the 700, not a single customer has been charged with a crime.

STU: But they can't get their stuff back.

GLENN: Right. FBI won't say if any of them have been a subject of a criminal investigation, prior to the raid.

In the alleged -- alleged in the affidavit, only is the fact that those who are irrational, or who have criminal motives, would rent a box, from this -- this safety-deposit box company, rather than a bank. So in the affidavit, that's another thing they told the judge. It's irrational. Why would you keep your money there, instead of at a bank?

What?

STU: It's not your decision to make whether it's rational or not. It's my money, I get to put it wherever I want. It's my stuff, I get to put it wherever I want.

GLENN: Now, the vault company, apparently pled guilty to the drug and money laundering charges. But nothing else has come from the investigation.

The company is out of business. The owners were never charged. The owners were never charged.

Hmm. And now people are suing to get their money back. But a lot of customers aren't willing, to put up all of the money, for -- you know, because not everybody had a lot of money in there. You know, somebody had the ashes of their loved one in a safety-deposit box. Nope. Not getting it back.

And the reason why people aren't willing to do it, is because it's taking a lot -- you're fighting the federal government.

So it's taking a lot of money, to fight the federal government. So people are losing tens of thousands of dollars, at this early stage, just to -- just to make sure that they're cleared. Not getting their stuff back. Just cleared.

Huh.

STU: It's incredible. How does this stuff happen? How can --

GLENN: This is going to happen more and more. Do you know that in 2008, banks changed the rules, the government changed the rules. That in the case of any kind of emergency, the bank does not allow you to go in to get your safety-deposit box, and open it. It must be opened in the presence of a DHS official.

Did you know that?

STU: It must be.

GLENN: It must be. In case of an emergency, if the government says, it's an emergency and we have -- you know, any stupid reason, to see what's in everybody's safety-deposit box. The banks cannot allow you to take the contents of your box, without a DHS official in the room with you, going through the box.

STU: So, I mean, I guess the theory behind that, would be, what?

Like you have illicit materials, so you'll get caught by the DHS official?

GLENN: Yeah. Let's say there are terrorists. And you have a -- I don't know, a pipe bomb.

Or -- or, you know, plans for a pipe bomb. Be able to catch you.

I personally think, it's to seize your cash. Anybody who has cash --

STU: You have too much cash.

GLENN: To seize it.

STU: You're automatically guilty, as we've seen with this sort of -- the government --

GLENN: You don't even have to say you're guilty.

STU: No crimes.

GLENN: This one, they say, no crimes. No crimes. And yet, they're keeping the $86 million.

STU: This is on the civil asset forfeiture framework. And it's something we've talked about for a long time. It's incomprehensible that this stuff goes on in the United States of America.

If you were to tell me, this happened, you know, in Russia. You would expect it.

GLENN: You would expect it. Correct.

STU: The fact that the United States government is claiming -- and just taking stuff from citizens all across the country, with no crime. Many times, even being charged. Let alone -- I mean, to me, conviction is the point. Where you have an argument.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: When you prove your case, you can take the stuff. Not before that. And they had, they're doing it before they can even charge anyone.

GLENN: Listen to this. The lawsuit also claims that some of the box holders who came forward, to reclaim their seized property were then subject to another investigation.

If you went to the FBI and said, I want my stuff back. The FBI examined their baskets. Their DMV records. Their tax returns.

STU: My gosh.

GLENN: And any criminal history checks. Approximately 20 to 30 box holders decided, you know what, I don't want anything to do with this. FBI agent, Linda Zellhart said that many have speculated that those holders, who have walked away, wanted to avoid either becoming an FBI target, or tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So, in other words, if you just say, you know what, my wife's ashes are just not worth it. Well, maybe you're hiding something.

STU: Oh, my God. So you're guilty, if you walk away. And you're guilty, if you ask.

GLENN: If you ask.

STU: Oh, well, that's it.

GLENN: This is, America, gang.

STU: Is it?

GLENN: Yeah. It is. Today. It is today.

STU: It doesn't seem like it.

GLENN: Yeah. It doesn't. Because it's not a constitutional America.

But this is the America we now live in, and it is important that you wake up and stand up. We have to begin to stand together. Get your preacher off his fat ass.

If he is not already delivering sermons about the blessings of God, because we're stopping abortion. And then warning, what's going to be happening in those other -- if he's too afraid to say anything, about abortion and alert you to the blessings and the dangers, find another church. Talk to him. And say, why not?

If he hems and haws, find another church. Find another church.

If these rights are given to us by God, that's not just a phrase. In the Declaration of Independence. Who else gives rights? Who else?

If you can't say God, then it's got to come from the government. And I don't get anything from the government, especially for free.

I get no rights from the government. If -- if they're not on the front lines, of standing up, and protecting God-given rights, you're in the wrong church.

Go find one. And start standing up for these things. You are about to have a digital currency, that has all of the earmarks of the mark of the beast.

All of the earmarks. Read revelation. Read what cryptocurrency can do, if it's run by the central bank. And read about what it is, in China.

It might as well be the mark of the beast.

You are about to lose everything. Financially, why?

Because of corruption. Is that what God wants. Does God want you to just stand around, and just allow corruption to happen?

Does God -- does God have a positional on mutilation of our children's bodies?

Do you think God has a position on whether it's cool or not, to teach kids, all about sex in second grade?

Do you think God has a position on any of this? Do you think if Jesus came back today, and you were there saying, no. You know what, whatever. About the trans shows. And the stripper shows with the kids.

Do you think God has an opinion on that?

If you don't, I don't know who you worship. He has strong opinions, especially on what happens to his children. And that includes you, me, Democrats. Socialists. Marxists. Kids. Old people.

He has been a definite love for all of us. But he also has an opinion on right or wrong. And if your preacher ain't talking about it, get away from that church, and find one.

Because God's people have got to start standing up, or we lose freedom. The world's freedom will be on our heads.

The Right WON’T WIN Unless it Does THIS
RADIO

The Right WON’T WIN Unless it Does THIS

Recently, “America’s Cultural Revolution” author Christopher Rufo warned that “the Right faces an inflection point.” Instead of focusing on actually changing policies and culture, he argued, some on the Right have leaned into “conspiracy theories that lead nowhere.” Some of these, especially related to Israel, have caused massive debates. But how should we approach this divide? And what’s causing it? Christopher and Glenn make the case that the answer is self-discipline, NOT censorship, and providing better content than just “cheap attention” tweets. In order to win against the progressive elites, conservatives must get their own house in order first.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last week, I saw Christopher Rufo, who I greatly admire.

Write and talk about something we don't need to talk about. But in that, he said, the right faces an reflection point. There are serious people, who are trying to advance a serious political movement, with a vision for governing.

There are also unserious people, who are willing to sell conspiracy. Leading us nowhere.

I care about politics, because I believe we have substantive work to do for the country. This requires putting together a coalition that is capable of taking responsibility. The choice is ours.

I responded to that. And people -- and I'm hoping Christopher didn't. But people thought that I was coming after Christopher and I, but I wasn't.

I was really frustrated with, he's right. But what does a serious option look like?

I said, I have great respect for Christopher Rufo. He has done more to expose the rot than many of us combined. But, Chris, the only option that I see that is viable is a return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All of our problems stem from the violation of these documents. Congress doesn't care.

Nor does it even attempt to do its job. Every administration is worse than the last. At this point, it is all powerful.

Supreme Court has trouble defining a woman. May God help us, with them defining any of the Amendments. Our Justice Department, Intel, and every agency has been co-opted by radicals. Those who believe in a constitutional republic are not the radicals. There is another option.

Return to e pluribus unum. The Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So I wanted to get Christopher on. Because I heard from so many people, that we were warring. And, Christopher, I'm sorry, if I've let anybody, to think I would stand against you.

Because I have some admiration for you.

CHRIS: Of course not. I didn't take any offense to it.

I found we were actually in agreement. I'm glad we have a chance to talk in greater depth.

I think you translation canned the problem there perfectly. But the question I'm raising is, how do we get there?

What kind of coalition do we need?

What kind of intellectual leadership, do we need? And then what kind of political leadership do we need?

And what I noticed on the right, especially on the horrific I can attacks against Jews in Israel, is that there's been a fragmentation.

And there's people chasing conspiracy theories. There's a rise. Kind of resurge answer, on the outer fringes of anti-Semitism on the right.

And then there are people elevating their profiles in media. On conspiracy theories, that lead nowhere, on kind of tabloid-style dossett that doesn't offer any kind of concrete possibility.

And so I think we have a media problem. And we have, in addition, a leadership problem.

GLENN: When you say a media problem, you mean the right media?

CHRIS: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. I just -- I think if you look at kind of serious conservative media figures. And, of course, I would include you in this. You're always doing the reporting, the conversations, trying to guide people, towards something, that that they can do. Some legislation that politicians can pass. Some policy that we can adopt. Some counterculture that we can build. But I think given the dynamics of online media advertising, audience building, and then just the dynamics of kind of general tech and media trends.

Some people are being, you know, kind of generously rewarded with clicks and attention. Who don't actually offer anything substantive. And I think it gets some of our audience. And some of our listeners. In this outrage cycle.

Where they're outraged for outrage sake.

They're not being directed for guiding that outrage towards something constructive. And I've seen it. It can be really be damaging to people. And it's certainly damaging to a political movement.

And I don't think it's a failure of the audience. I think it's actually a failure of us, in the media, in positions of authority, in positions of leadership. You always have to guide people towards something that can make their lives better, and if we're not doing that, we're taking advantage, and we have to stop.

GLENN: So I completely agree with you.

So what is -- because we agree with the solution. And this is my point, back to you, was, I am very afraid of serious options. Because there is another split in the right. That is -- is willing to look at -- at extra constitutional solutions. And that's really dangerous. And starting to say, well, this Constitution, maybe it's old and dusty. Like the left has been saying.

No, no, no, no. No. All of our problems are solved, by two things.

One, the people living a better life. And I don't mean like, you're making more money. I mean, you're more decent, humble, and just better person. Plus, the rule of law. Being restored, as written.

So where do you see anybody coming up and really promoting that, Chris?

CHRIS: Well, I think that's exactly what we need to do. And I've been very vocal. There's a lot of frustration on the right. There's a lot of anxiety. But all of our problems can be solved through kind of normal -- Democratic -- peaceful Democratic means. We still have a great system.

But our system is atrophying because we're not using that system. And soiled point to the leadership of someone whom I admire very much. Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida. He had the same legislature, that Jeb Bush did. He had the same state Constitution.

And yet, he's using power effectively within the law, to make Florida a better state for people to live, work, and raise families.

And so I think we have to really discipline our own coalition, we have to stop engaging in these kind of fantasies, of extra judicial or extra parliamentary politics. And we have to say, if we are going to be the conservative, political party, the conservative political movement, we have to respect the documents that just be smarter. Be more persistent. Be more diligent.

In actually practicing politics. And so there are models out there, that are successful. And I think, we have another model of the kind of more, say, radical, extra constitutional model. That is the dismal failure. It's always been a dismal failure. When the left did it in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with those radical movements, the American people rejected them. If the right does it at any time, now or in the future, the people, the citizens will reject them.

It's a dead end. And we need media figures, that are kind of telling people to straighten out. To have self-discipline. To remind people of the constitutional principles that we're fighting for. And then to lay out a plausible plan.

Because people get desperate, when they think we have no other options. So it's our responsibility to show them the concrete options, not just spin out into conspiracy land.

GLENN: So, Chris, I do not -- I do not -- I don't listen to anybody else. I don't watch anybody else.

I read. But I have tried to cut my reading back to about four hours a day.

Because it's just poison. It's just all poison. But it's part of my job.

I have to read and be informed. So I don't -- but I don't hear things. You -- I am very concerned about just somebody doing something stupid. I'm also very concerned about this very, very small group of people.

That are Christian nationalists. But it's very small.

I am not concerned about the -- the average listener, if you will.


CHRIS: Correct.

GLENN: You seem to be -- I don't know if your concern is greater than mine.

And I'm pretty concerned about things. I want to -- I want to judge why -- what is it that you're feeling or is bringing this out, in such a passionate way? I want to make sure I'm not missing it.

CHRIS: Yeah. Well, I think we are approaching a critical period, in our country's history.

And, you know, I think the genesis of my comments. Was this -- you know, blowup between Candace Owens. And the Daily Wire. You know, Ben Shapiro's publication.

And, you know, I think that -- I tried to be disciplined. In my criticisms. People within our coalition. Within our movement.

But, you know, Candice had been arguing that there are secret gangs of Jews. Murdering people in Hollywood. She had rationalized Kanye West's, you know, kind of deranged antisemitic outbursts. She had been pushing stories about how the president of France's wife is actually a man. And these are stories that drive clicks. They drive controversy.

But they actually don't create anything substantive. And unfortunately, there is a kind of rising group of commentators and media figures. That have figured out, that the way to get cheap attention. Is to put forward stories like these.

And I just think that, we have to be, of course, kind of tolerant of a range of opinion.

But there also is an out of bound or a limit, that any political movement needs to maintain its own coherence and its own discipline.

GLENN: And you're not talking about censorship. You're just talking about self-control.

CHRIS: That's right. It's first self-discipline, and then it's also giving people a better option.

Of course, I don't think any of these opinions should be censored. They shouldn't be stricken from the record. The government shouldn't have any sway whatsoever.

But I think it's up to us, to have that discerning judgment. And to also show people, why this is such a limitation.

Why -- why it actually is not helpful.

And to get people out of this outrage cycle, that depletes them, and into a cycle of participation and politics in a real sense.

You know, politics is not, you know, tweeting conspiracy theories. Politics is actually winning elections. Changing the law. And managing institutions.

And so we needed a movement that is capable of doing that. And if we're not a movement that is capable of doing that, we don't deserve power.

We don't deserve to win, and we don't deserve to have our ideas shaping the law.

GLENN: I am -- we're talking to Christopher Rufo.

I am gravely concerned, that any time between now and really probably January 20th of next year, is the most dangerous place our republic may have ever been.

And that's including in the Civil War. We are -- we are at the edge of losing everything. Somebody does something stupid. We go to war. The economy collapses.

Whatever it is. There is -- there is a real shot, that we lose our freedom. It's happening all -- I mean, look what's happening in Brazil. This is -- this is happening all over the West, right now.

And I know, I have self-edited more than I've ever edited. Because I want to be very careful with my word.

Because I am so concerned, about the cries of dis and miss and malinformation. That will be wrongly pointed in people's direction by the state.

But it's important now, that we are speaking clearly. And as -- and as accurately, as we possibly can.

Do you feel the same way?

CHRIS: I feel the same way, and I'm very concerned about it. And I think this really dovetails nicely with my argument. If we don't have the self-discipline and if we engage in these kind of wild lines of media narratives.

It will provide, you know -- it's fake. But it will provide a kind of rationalization or justification for continued censorship. If the government and organized left, can point to a verifiably false conspiracy theories. They can then use it as justification for censorship.

Obviously, I don't support that. I think you should -- I think everyone has the right to say whatever they want. True, false, good or bad.

But, you know, we have to be realistic about it. And this is a major threat, of getting deplatformed. Of getting debanked.

GLENN: Yep.

CHRIS: Of getting kind of de-anonymized, exposed. And so we have to -- we unfortunately. Look, the New York Times can publish conspiracy theories for three years about Russiagate, they will be awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and they'll pay no price when it turns out to be all a pack of lies.

We don't have that luxury. I wish we did. But we have to take the reality for what it is.

We have to be more disciplined. We have to have higher standards. And we have to fight much smarter than our opponents.

That said, the good news, is that when we fight smart, like DeSantis has done in Florida.

There is a wide open vista of possibility for us.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

CHRIS: And we can truly create, you know, what I think of as a counter hegemony. That will create a bulwark or a defense against all of the awful things that the organized left is doing.

GLENN: Christopher Rufo, thank you so much. Thank you for being a friend. Friend of the show. And friend of freedom. Appreciate it.

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348
SPECIALS

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348

Everything is a “public health crisis” these days. Racism. Climate change. The lack of access to “gender-affirming care.” But there’s one ACTUAL public health crisis the far Left has created: diversity, equity, and inclusion. The future of YOUR health care is at stake as this dangerous reform movement is being forced upon American medical schools, all of the professional medical organizations, and hospitals, with total endorsement from Biden’s White House. Glenn Beck exposes how this academic cancer is changing medical school admissions and graduates, what caused this movement to accelerate, the real-world life-and-death consequences of this insanity for patients, and how any resistance to this movement brings swift crackdown from the Thought Police. Glenn is joined by Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the founder of “Do No Harm,” a network of doctors, nurses, medical students, and patients working to get identity politics out of medicine. Dr. Goldfarb taught medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and published more than a hundred articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and other top medical journals. He debunks the racist claim that “black patients need black doctors” and sounds the alarm on deadly efforts to push unqualified doctors on patients.

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once called Glenn a traitor because he thought Glenn's opinions on climate change were "dangerous" and should be shut down. But now, he's one of the biggest CRITICS of censorship. So, what changed? Glenn decided to sit down with the independent presidential candidate to find out.

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!
RADIO

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!

With inflation still on the rise, Glenn and Stu review another shocking number: how much money you need to “live comfortably” in America. The numbers have gone through the roof and it’s no surprise that the most expensive states are blue states. Thanks to inflation, a single adult now needs to make over $100,000 a year in order to live comfortably in many states. So, can you afford your state?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So there's a new number out now, on what it costs to live in the United States of America. It's a little higher than it used to be.

And I -- I don't know if anybody has noticed they're having a hard time making ends meet.

Comfortable to live comfortably is defined as the monthly income, needed to cover a 50/30/20 budget, which allocates 50 percent of your earnings for necessities like housing and utility costs, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and 20 percent for savings or investments.

STU: Wow. I don't think a lot of people are living like that.

GLENN: Nobody is living like that. Nobody is living like that.

STU: That -- but wait. Percent of what? If you're making $10 million. You know. What is it -- you don't need to have a 50/30/20 lifestyle to live comfortably, right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

They're saying this is the minimum. This is what it takes to, you know, live comfortably. In America.

STU: So -- this is not talking about -- I think Jeff Bezos is pretty good. I don't think he needs an article.

STU: You're saying, they're basically reverse engineering the number you need to hit that. Is that what you're saying?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right? Jeez.

STU: I was trying to understand.

GLENN: Here they are.

Most costly states: Massachusetts. $116,000.

STU: Hard-core conservative state.

GLENN: Hawaii. You'll see this a lot. Hawaii, 113.

STU: Another conservative -- red state.

GLENN: California, 113.

STU: Big red state there.

GLENN: New York, 111.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I'm rounding out the top. Topping out the top five is Washington State, with 106.

STU: Another big red state. That's amazing. So $100,000, and you cannot live comfortably.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That's incredible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, to live comfortably in these states, you need to earn double what most single earners typically make. The median income for a single full-time worker is around $60,000. The national median for living comfortably is $89,000.

So there's a shortage there.

STU: And those are statewide numbers to point out. It's a lot worse in these cities.

Like, there was a time. I don't know this is eight to ten years old now.

When I remember looking at this. They gave you these guide lines, what you need to earn to buy an average home in the market. In the market of San Francisco, the -- several of the players on the roster of the San Francisco giants, did not earn enough money, to buy the average home.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: In the market.

GLENN: So let me go through this. Alabama, to live comfortably, $83,000.

Alaska, $96,000.

And I don't know if that's ever -- I don't know if you're ever comfortable living in Alaska, unless you can change the climate completely.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

Arizona, $97,000. Arkansas, 79

STU: Gosh.

GLENN: California, 113. Colorado, 103. Connecticut, 100. Delaware, 94. Florida, 93.

Think of that. In Florida, it's 93. In Colorado, it's 100. Georgia, 96. Hawaii, 113. Idaho, 88. Illinois, 95. Indiana, 85. Iowa, 83. Kansas, 84. Kentucky, 80. Louisiana, 82. Maine, 91.

Why? Bear traps? Maryland.

STU: That's a northeast state.

GLENN: Maryland, 102. Massachusetts, 116. Michigan, 84. Minnesota, 89. Mississippi, 82. Missouri, 84. Montana, 84. Nebraska, 83.

STU: A lot of these -- these are like the bargain basement states. You are having $85,000 to live comfortably.

GLENN: I know. Yeah.

STU: That's just putting away some money for retirement. That's not living -- you're not flying private.

GLENN: I know. Yeah, but you're not living paycheck to paycheck. If you would live that way. If you would do 50/30/20.

STU: Right. Right.

GLENN: Nevada, 93.

Nobody does that. Do you know anybody who is young, that put 20 percent of their salary away for savings?

STU: Depends what you mean by young. As you're starting out, you're just trying to make it, pay your bills. As you get older, you're trying to put some money away.

GLENN: 20 percent?

STU: It's hard to do.

GLENN: Really hard to do. Nevada, 93.

STU: By the way, 50/20/30. What are the taxes on this one? This is post-tax revenue, I assume.

GLENN: Yeah. Where are the taxes?

STU: Another 30 is going to taxes. So which part of it are you taking out?

GLENN: That's why nobody saves. New Hampshire, 98. New Jersey, 103. To live in New Jersey. New Mexico, 83. New York, 111. North Carolina, 89. North Dakota, 52.

STU: North Dakota. This is -- this is hwy people go to the Dakotas, I suppose. It's --

GLENN: Is it worth Dakota, though? You don't even have the presidential thing on the mountain, that Dakota.

STU: That's true. Was that the Doug Burgum state?

GLENN: Yes, it is. Fifty-two.

STU: You got those eyebrows. They are kind of like -- on the Mount Rushmore of eyebrows. I don't know if that counts.

GLENN: Ohio, 80. Oklahoma, 80. Oregon, 101.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Pennsylvania, 91. Rhode Island, 100. Oh, my gosh, for Rhode Island!

South Carolina, 88. South Dakota, 81. Tennessee, 86. Texas, 87. Utah, 93. Vermont, 95.
Virginia, 99. Washington, 106. West Virginia, 78.
That's a state you could live in. Wisconsin, 84. Wyoming, 87.

Wow.

STU: First of all, the red and blue state is -- I don't know if it's perfect. It's darn close to perfect, as far as the difference is.

GLENN: It is. It is.

STU: You look at that, and you think -- it wasn't that long ago, that we would say, oh, my gosh, nap guy is earning six figures. Doing really well.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's just not even doing really well.

GLENN: No.

STU: It's the way you're supposed to plan for your future. And now you need to earn six figures, in most states. Or at least close to most states.

GLENN: And it's going to get worse. That's the problem. It will get worse.

How will companies be able to keep up with it? How is that going to happen?

GLENN: The presses.
STU: Yeah. But eventually, people can't afford to produce the products that people want, and people can't afford to buy the products that they need.

STU: I mean, you just recited the slogan for Bidenomics. That's exactly --

GLENN: Yes, I did. Starts bottom up. Bottom up. First people to be heard.

The bottom. And eventually, it's heard all the way up.

The -- in another remarkable story, the IMF has come out and said, that Biden has got to stop money.

Printing money, and spending money.

The International Monetary Fund, sounded the alarm on the Biden administration's rampant spending as, quote, out of line with what is needed for long-term fiscal stability.

STU: No!

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: What? It feels like it's right in line with the exact -- what you're supposed to do with each budget is spend trillions of dollars than you have.

I thought that's the way you're supposed to be fiscally responsible. What is the 50, 30, 20 number for the United States right now? It's like 80, 50, zero. Eighty, 50, negative 30. Right?

That's what we're doing. The savings is negative 30 percent of the budget. We're spending mandatories, like 80 percent of what we have. Then there's another 50 percent discretionary. It's insanity. And we're getting to the point very soon. Just the interest on the money already spent will be more than our entire defense budget.

GLENN: We will have to borrow over a trillion dollars a year, just for the interest.

STU: My God.

GLENN: I mean, this is unsustainable.

And I really don't understand, why more people can't see this.

STU: You keep seeing this word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.