Tired of hearing about the 2024 presidential election, Sleepy Joe Biden’s latest gaffe, or the devastating Israel/Gaza war? Glenn is too, which is why "Glenn TV" is taking a break this week from the tumultuous news cycle and bringing you something different: a pilot episode of "The Beck Story," a history TV series that will attempt to answer some of the most burning questions and mysteries surrounding the artifacts in Glenn's museum. This episode is all about the space race between the Soviet Union and the United States, and specifically it is about the one item that began it all: the Sputnik satellite. Tension between the U.S. and Russia isn’t new. Decades ago, when the Soviet Union launched the first-ever satellite into space, Americans eerily felt that Russians were watching them constantly. Sputnik also may be the reason for America’s urgency to land on the moon in the 1960s and why JFK uttered those famous words: "We choose to go to the moon." It’s an item with countless historical ramifications, which is why Glenn purchased one of the Sputnik test models in late 2023 for this museum … or did he?! When his research team informed him that he MAY have bought a fake item, Glenn decided to take YOU along for the ride to discover the truth. Is the Sputnik model in his museum collection fraudulent? And if it is a true test model, then how the heck did a prized possession from the Soviet Union end up in Texas, USA?!
Trump's Intel investment: Smart business move or unconstitutional partnership?
President Trump has announced a deal to buy a10% stake of computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Stu, I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.
And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.
It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.
So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.
Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.
I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.
Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.
But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?
Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?
Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.
But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.
Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.
Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?
How about your grocery stores?
That's Mamdani, isn't it?
And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.
What happens after we own a piece of that?
So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.
It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.
We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.
It was General Motors.
And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.
But they were not going to be involved.
But they were
The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.
And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.
You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.
Come on!
Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.
It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?
You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.
He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.
Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.
He wants taxpayers to share the upside.
He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?
It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?
I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.
Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?
I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?
STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.
And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.
But, you know, he has to live under that law.
And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.
With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?
These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.
GLENN: With interest. With interest.
STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?
Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.
These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.
GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.
STU: I would agree with that analysis.
GLENN: Very much against them.
STU: Very much against them.
The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.
Now, they will say, voting rights.
They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --
GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.
Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.
STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.
Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.
Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.
That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.
GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.
STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.
Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.
We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.
It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.
GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.
I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.
STU: Well, this is the concern, right?
Who is cheering this on?
Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.
This was his proposal.
He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.
Maybe this was a good one.
You can make that argument.
GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?
STU: Socialist please. Socialist.
GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.
STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.
I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.
It's not just him.
You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?
And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.
GLENN: Uh-huh.
STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?
And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.
I get it on both sides.
That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.
GLENN: It will be.
Once you start this. Once you start this.
And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.
Although, we're spending more money.
And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.
Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!
STU: He would be the guy.
GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.
Rob Schneider's Optimistic Vision for America
Comedy legend Rob Schneider and Glenn Beck discuss the current state of affairs in the United States and how political divisions have driven a wedge between the American people. Schneider discusses how his faith in God and perspective on life events shapes his views and why it leads him to still believe in the future of this country being better than many others are willing to envision.
Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Actor/Comedian Rob Schneider HERE
Urgent Question: What’s Behind Media’s Sudden Truth-Telling?
Glenn Beck highlights two shocking stories that the mainstream media would have never touched before. CNN is now exposing the Clintons’ disturbing ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein network, while the Washington Post is revealing newly released documents proving that Ronald Reagan was secretly undermined by the CIA and other agencies when he tried to dismantle America’s nuclear arsenal. These revelations don’t just challenge the narratives we were fed for decades... they confirm the existence of the very “DEEP STATE” the media once mocked. Why are outlets like CNN and WaPo suddenly admitting the truth, and what does this mean for the future of American politics?
Watch the 1st Hour of This Episode of the Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE
Glenn Beck's MUST-SEE Takedown of Zohran Mamdani
The rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old socialist who may become the next Mayor of NYC is a warning for the rest of America. Glenn Beck dives into Mamdani's true background and warns viewers why this radical leftist is exactly the type of candidate Democrats will support more of in the future as they attempt to remake America in their own warped vision.
Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE