August 4, 2025 • 39 mins
Listen to The Next-Gen Report live! Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on AM950, KPRC.
With so much back and forth in the economic headlines, it's hard to know what exactly is going on. Certified financial planner Richard Rosso will explain what's going on behind the scenes.
The exposure of the RussiaGate scandal, and it's starting to look like the lines might trace all the way back to Hillary Clinton herself. We'll break down the latest revelations about the major hoax.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
With so much back and forth in the economic headlines, it's hard to know what exactly is going on. Certified financial planner Richard Rosso will explain what's going on behind the scenes.
The exposure of the RussiaGate scandal, and it's starting to look like the lines might trace all the way back to Hillary Clinton herself. We'll break down the latest revelations about the major hoax.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
From the heart of the Space City to the heart
of gen Z. Welcome to Next Gen Conversation, not Dad's
Talk Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Ethan talks to you about the issues and events the
men are to our generation.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
This is the Next Gen Report with Ethan can.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Hey.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Good evening, Houston. How are we I'm doing great. You
didn't ask, but I'm doing great.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I went to a weird Al concert on Friday. So
if my voice sounds horse throughout the show this evening,
actually I think it kind of made me sound a
little cooler. It sounds like I've been doing this for
longer than I have, which is good. But if my
voice is hoarse, that's why I was screaming my happy
(00:51):
little butt off the entire concert. I am a huge
weird Alfan. I have been since I was like eight
years old. I can recite white and Nerdy from on
the spot. I won't do it now, I'll save you
from that. So, needless to say, that weird Al concert
was an unbelievable experience for me, and I was screaming
the entire time, and so that has had some negative
(01:14):
side effects on my voice because I did not do
what my choir teacher told me, and I did not
hydrate beforehand. So all that being said, let's dig into
some of the old news. We've had a lot of
stuff break over this week. This has been a busy,
busy week for me. So let's start with I think
(01:37):
Russia Gate. That's a good place to kick off. Obviously,
we've been getting a lot of revelations about this, which
is good.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
This is good. We need to know the full and
absolute truth here.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
But so we kind of found out that the Obama administration,
as he was on his way out, was kind of
winking and nodding at his administration officials, his intelligence community,
basically okaying them to kind of allegedly, I should say,
(02:11):
allegedly okaying them. It looks like he was aware of
the fact and winking and nodding at the fact that
the intelligence community was completely making all of this Russia
collusion stuff up. That's what the documents as we have them,
seem to indicate. The intelligence community right after the election
came to President Obama with a report that basically said, yeah,
(02:36):
the Russians didn't really interfere at all with our election,
and Obama essentially winks and nods and says check again.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
All right, So draw your conclusions there.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
So now we know not only did Obama allegedly probably
have a direct role in this, Hillary Clinton also allegedly
probably definitely had a role in this. And that's according
to documents that the FBI has that were just declassified
by the Trump administration. Read the documents that prove Hillary
(03:10):
Clinton okayed a plan to smear Trump with Russia collusion.
This is from the New York Post. Hillary Clinton signed
off on a plan hatched by a top campaign advisor
to smear then candidate Donald Trump with false claims of
Russian collusion and distract from her own mounting email scandal
during the twenty sixteen campaign. According to explosive intelligence files
(03:34):
declassified on Thursday, the twenty four page intelligence annex was
compiled for memos and emails obtained by the Obama administration
in the lead up to election day that laid out
confidential conversations quote unquote between leaders of the Democrat National Committee,
including then chaired Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and liberal billionaire George
(03:54):
Soros's Open Society Foundation. So essentially, this is all the
brainchild of the Clinton campaigns of foreign policy I believe
it is director, Yeah, foreign Policy Director Julianne Smith included
raising the themes of Putin's support for Trump and subsequently
(04:15):
steering public opinion toward the notion that it needs to
equate the Russian leader's political influence campaign with actual hacking
of election infrastructure. So they completely made this up. One
of the largest kind of political scandals in modern American
history we now know, I think beyond a shadow of
(04:36):
a reasonable doubt, was completely manufactured by the opposition party
that is Crazy. Open Society Senior vice president Leonard Bernardo
was looped in on the scheme and laid out its
intended effects in a series of emails in late July
twenty sixteen. One of the emails says, Julie says it
(04:56):
will be a long term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.
Bernardo was quoted as writing on July twenty fifth, Now
it's good for a post convention bounce. Later the FBI
will put more oil onto the fire. So not only
did they completely manufacture this political scandal to target their opponent,
(05:17):
they planned they intentionally planned to use official channels to
make it look worse than it actually is. And I
say worse it They made it up, and then they said,
don't worry, the FBI will make it look legit, even
though we just crafted this nonsense, and that's exactly what
(05:37):
ended up happening after the election.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
This is insane.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Two days later, Bernardo wrote, HRC presumably that stands for
Hillary Rodham. Clinton approved Julia's idea about Trump and Russian
hackers hampering US elections. That should distract people from her
own missing emails, especially if the affair goes to the
Olympic level. Oh my god, So we have emails that
(06:05):
clearly indicate the Clinton campaign made this up and planned
for the FBI support that they got, which is insanely
like third world. And then on top of that, Hillary
Clinton probably definitely had an active role in this. This
isn't just her staffers doing this behind her back like
(06:25):
she didn't know. She, according to this email, allegedly signed
off on it, and then she spent the next several
months campaigning on it. To this day, she still goes
out occasionally and says Russia stole the twenty sixteen election,
even though she knows that her campaign staff made that up. Allegedly,
libs of TikTok went and posted a bunch of Hillary
(06:47):
Clinton tweets about this. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a
covert server linking Trump organization to a Russia based bank.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
She knew this was a lie when she tweeted it.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
It should concern every American that Russia is willing to
engage in such a hostile acts in order to help
Donald Trump become president. She knows this is BS, but
there she is tweeting this in twenty sixteen. That's when
these are dated. Yeah, twenty sixteen. She knew all of
this was BS because her team came up with it
(07:19):
allegedly with her approval.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
This is baffling, it really is.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
You should be concerned about this because what this shows
you is the deep state is real. It's not some
crazy right wing conspiracy theory. It's not your goofy uncle
with the garage beers and the tinfoil hat.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
No, here it is. Here's the documents.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
A political campaign made up a lie and they knew
they could count on the FBI to help them push
it and make it legitimate. That is insane. All right,
stay tune, we got a great show coming up. This
is the Next Gen Report on AM nine to fifty KPRC.
We will be right back. All right, We're gonna stay
(08:19):
on this Clinton Russia stuff for a minute because there's
just so much here. There's a lot of video I
want to play sound I want to give you on
this because I'm a little bit worried that because.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
It's been so long since twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
I remind you, we're almost ten years removed from the
start of all this, so it's easy for all of
these memories to kind of fade, and I think it's
important that they not. We need to understand exactly how
big of a deal this is. I mean, this completely
dominated the twenty sixteen campaign and the first three and
a half years of Trump's first administration and has persisted
(08:57):
on to this day until the Trump administration started releasing
all the documents that basically kill all this.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
So here's what we're gonna do.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
We're gonna spend this segment kind of rehashing a lot
of that twenty sixteen nonsense that we had to deal with,
and then in the next segment, we'll talk a little
bit about the economy, because we have a lot of
economic news that I think is very important. And Richard Rosso,
who is one of my go to financial guys, this
guy's brilliant. He will be joining us in the next
(09:27):
segment to talk a little bit about what we're seeing
in the economy. But let's knock out this Russia stuff,
and then we'll talk to Richard Rosso. He's coming up,
he's getting ready to hop on with us. And then
in the final segment, we'll just kind of do a
big roundup of a bunch of different stuff. So there's
the plan. Let's get to it. So here is a
(09:48):
clip of Hillary Clinton. Just to remind you, libs of
TikTok tweeted this video out along with the email, saying
HRC approved all of this. This woman was lying through
her teeth that entire campaign cycle and has never been
called on it, has never apologized, has never faced any
(10:08):
consequences at all. As a matter of fact, the people
that helped her formulate these lies, even though she lost
that election, they went on to hold prominent positions of
power later in the Biden administration. The foreign policy director
that was, according to these emails, playing a major role
(10:30):
in creating all of this stuff, she went on to be,
I believe, a UN ambassador.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Where is the breakdown of that?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Here it is sorry, not UN.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
She was the ambassador to NATO under Joe Biden, Julie Smith,
and she said, I don't have any comment. That's what
she told the New York Post when she was reached
out about this. That is unbelievable. She was a NATO
ambassador after outright lying to the American people, formulating just
completely out of whole cloth, one of the most insane,
(11:04):
I guess, political scandals in modern American history, no consequences.
And then, of course here's Hillary Clinton on ABC's The View,
lying through her teeth about all of this.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
There is no denying that the Russians interfered in the election, right,
whether or not they had willing or unwitting help from
the Trump team, they interfered, and they did so to
help him and hurt me, and they did so to
destabilize our democracy.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And they have not stopped.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Okay, so everything she just said is demonstratably false. According
to these documents that we've now had release, not only
did the Russians not interfere in the election, they also
were not trying to help Trump win. As a matter
of fact, we now know that they were planning for
Hillary Clinton to win and had prepared a massive slew
(11:59):
of intelligen leaks about Hillary Clinton's health issues that they
were going to release after she won to destabilize not
only her administration but public faith in the United States
government as a whole. And she knew all this and
lied about it on the view anyway, unbelievable, unbelievable. Now
(12:19):
she's allowed to do this. Unfortunately, she's allowed to lie
about it. I don't think she's allowed to completely make
all this stuff up. There should be legal consequences here.
Will any of this ever actually come back to haunt
Hillary Clinton? Will Hillary Clinton ever face an actual trial
over any of this? No, probably not. She has plausible
(12:40):
deniability and everything. HRC could stand for whatever in those emails.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
But she knew, she knew it was a lie. She
knew it was a lie that her people came up with.
And then she turns around.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
She goes on MSNBC and her and Rachel Maddow sit
there and say, oh, well, since the Russians are so
clearly and obviously and undeniably helping Donald Trump, Hey China,
can y'all come help us the Democrats? I'm not kidding
this happened. She lied about Donald Trump being helped by
the Russians and then use that as grounds to go
(13:12):
on Rachel Maddow's show and ask the Russians or to
ask the Chinese for help. This is the clown world
that we live in. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
You know, the only other adversary of ours who's anywhere
near as good as the Russians is China. So why
should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is
clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I here by tonight, ask China, that's right?
Speaker 5 (13:41):
And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't
you get Trump's tax returns?
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I'm sure our media would richly reward you.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Okay, even if she is joking, which she's probably joking,
that's weird, right, Can we just acknowledge that that's that's
a weird thing for a politician to do, which I
think is probably why she ended up losing that election.
This is the dirty little secret that nobody wants to
mention about Hillary Clinton. She's not popular, and she never
(14:12):
has been. She's a slightly more polished version of Kamala Harris.
I think she's deeply unpopular. Most people think she's kind
of weird and conniving and just goofy.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
But she has enough sort.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Of Democrat power brokers behind her, and enough folks in
the media that are willing to sit there and pretend
that she's popular in order to push her to certain
levels of political heights. But all that being said, when
you do stuff like this, it's weird. I think at
the time people watching that were like, this is weird.
This is weird for you to do. It's weird for
(14:49):
you to ask China of all countries to help you
win the election after accusing Donald Trump of using the
Russians to help him win the election, which of course
we now know is a lie that she made up.
I mean at ages like milk. All of this stuff
ages like milk. But it wasn't good at the time either.
(15:10):
And again, just to give you an idea of how
persistent this narrative was in our culture and our political
culture for the last ten years. Even as recently as
the twenty twenty election, this carried on. We all remember
Hunter Biden's laptop, right, The argument that Russia helped Trump
in twenty sixteen became the backbone of the argument that
(15:33):
Hunter Biden's laptop, which we know for a fact is
real and his Hunter Biden's was also Russian plant. There's
a strong case to be made that that, in line
with COVID, was one of the reasons Donald Trump lost
in twenty twenty. So while it didn't help Hillary Clinton win,
it clearly did help Joe Biden win. Take a listen
to all the different times that Joe Biden swore up
(15:55):
and down, no, this is a Russian plant. This laptop
is not Hunter Biden's, this is all fake. This is
Russian disinformation.
Speaker 6 (16:02):
Fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what this
he's accusing me of is a Russian plant.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
They have said that this has.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
All the four five former heads of the CIA, both
parties say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage.
This is classic Trump. We have four days left and
all of a sudden, there's a laptop. There's overwhelming evidence
that from the intelligence community that the Russians are engaged.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
From the Ball of Africa.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
Said yes, yes, yes, I know you asked. I have
no response Frompaign. It's the lastest effort in this desperate
campaign to smear me and my family. The vast majority
of the intelligence people have come out and said there's
no basis at all.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And the argument to support that claim from the left
and from the Biden campaign was always remember they did
the same thing in twenty sixteen, the Russians helped him win,
and we all now know that it was fake. It
was bs the entire time. People should face consequences for this.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Because again I remind you, the FBI under a Barack
Obama poured fuel on all this fire, just like the
Hillary Clinton campaign said they would in these emails that
we now have thanks.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
To the FBI and the Trump administration, this is insane.
This is third world stuff.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
You've got a political campaign openly working in line with
the administration in power to create lies about the opposition.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
That's wild. That's what happened here. All right, Stay tuned.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
We've got a lot coming up about the economy with
Richard Rosso. Just one quick ad break and we will
be right back with that. I'm easy, Buchannan, this is
the next Gen Report. Stay tuned, all right. So we've
(18:16):
had a whole mix of economic news. Some of it
is good, some of it is bad. It's been a
very busy week economically, and I am by no means
a financial expert. But I do know a guy who is,
and so I've brought him in to have a chat
with us. Mister Richard Rosso, certified Financial Planner. Thank you
for taking the time to join me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (18:38):
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
So let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
We had this really good report on the GDP for
quarter two that comes in at three percent growth. That
seems like it should be setting up a week of
great news, but it didn't.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Where did that three percent growth in the GDP he
come from? And what exactly does that mean in layman's
terms for the average You know Joe saving for his
four oh one k and voted for Trump for a
better economy.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Well, we did have a three percent jump in GDP
for April April through June period and that was pretty good. Right,
So we saw consumer spending still decent one point four
percent in the second quarter. That's better than it was
in prior periods. You know, we have erratic import export
numbers because of tariffs. We had front loaded quite a
(19:36):
bit of inventory before tariffs, right, so we see our
numbers when it comes to GDP jumping all over the
place because everybody is trying to figure out how much
inventory do I need? How are tariffs going to affect us?
So but you have to say when you look at
that number that the economy is fairly resistant, I mean resilient,
(19:58):
and the consumer is definit we you know, disdoundingly and
you go spending. That's what we do and we're continuing
to do it. So on that level, you know, numbers
look really pretty good.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
So let's dig into the tariffs a little bit, because
you know, heading towards the end of the week, we
got all this tariff news and of course people are
saying it's the end of the world, and then on
the other side, people are saying, no, it's fine, this
is all part of the plan. And the big question
here is really just is this going to cause more inflation?
All of the other stuff, you know, the politicals and
(20:33):
whatnot can worry about that, But what the average consumer
is worried about is is this going to hurt my
wallet or not? So where do we stand with the
tariffs and what can people expect over the next you know,
month to two months to maybe three as these tariffs
come into effect and as maybe some deals are.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
Worked on, well, keep in mind, and this is something
President Trump discussed. You are you are moving into or
what I call it transition period or a transition economy.
You are trying to move from a government job laiden,
government stimulus economy back to the private sector. That creates
(21:17):
a lot of uncertainty on how things operate. So when
you look at corporate profits and you look at inflation overall,
it's relatively benign, right, But when you look at core
services PCE, that's something the FED looks at. It's up
over three percent for the third month in a row,
(21:38):
and that's hotter than it's been before the pandemic, and
that keeps core PCE and overall PCE above that two
percent FED target. So we are seeing a spike durable
goods prices that is mostly terrif related. You have to
keep in mind we are as services economy. Eighty percent
of what we do in america's service related. There is
(22:01):
really no tariff related hangover in services. Tariffs hit goods,
manufactured goods. So you're hearing from a lot of companies,
a lot of CEOs are lamenting about the fact that
they're having to eat these tariffs because frankly, people don't
know whether or not the consumer is going to do this, right,
(22:23):
Consumers are inflation resistant and to pass on these costs
is sort of precarious for an organization to do so.
If a cat if a cat and mouse gain, how
long do they continue to absorb some of these margin costs?
You know, these costs that are going to hit margins
so that consumers are not are feeling it. We are
(22:47):
seeing increases in wages, so companies are paying more than
they have in the past above the current rate of
change of inflation.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So that's really.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
What you want for that that prices can balance out.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
Yeah, right, So you want people to get more wages
above the current rate of inflation. Although I would argue
that every household's rate of inflation differs, right, and an
older couple's rate of inflation for their household could be
very different than a young couple with children. But for
the most part the advertised numbers, if my pcees roughly,
(23:28):
I'm getting wage increases above the rate of inflation, and
that's what we want. The issue becomes is that's very
what we call sticky inflation, which means it doesn't really
drop off very quickly at all. Thus, it postpones the
FED from making any moves to lower rates when we
(23:50):
get an inflation number like we got before. Now, there
was some hope with these employment numbers not being as
good as expected that the FED may come in in September,
so in lower rates. The odds of a rate cut
have increased because of those numbers. But I would say
(24:12):
there's a lot of discrepancy in these numbers, and part
of it is again because of the flow of immigrants
and AI, which again is a variable that we're seeing
is very important when it comes to these numbers. But
yet I did not hear a lot about it in
media about how large scale layoffs our companies are looking
(24:33):
to wind down. I mean, Bank of America said, listen,
the company's headcount is going to continue to fall. They
went from three hundred thousand people to like two hundred
and ten to twelve thousand people, and they're going to
keep working that down. With AI, we're going to see
a lot of mental management, white collar jobs go out
the window, and that is also going to affect numbers.
(24:57):
But yet you might see that the unemployment number don't
really go up because the supply of labors equally the
demand of labor. We don't have a lot of people
looking for jobs because maybe they're not in the country anymore.
So this is what we have to remember that companies,
especially if they have to eat some of these tariffs,
they are going to consistently aggressively use AI to reduce headcount.
(25:23):
And that is something we're going to have to deal with.
That was going to be regardless of the president or not.
We just have all this other stuff going on right now.
Obviously that's affecting market volatility and how we feel about things.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
All righty, well, yeah, I think that's a good summary
of things. It kind of seems like we're very much
still in that, you know, we need to wait and
see what exactly is going on. We've got a lot
of different cogs moving sort of below the surface, and
we see the headlines, but the headlines are just that headlines.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
They're in the moment. Don't look at you know.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
One handful or one week's worth of of concerning headlines
and think, oh, well, the economies in the toilet.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
Well, and this is where investors and people watching their
four to one case because even though we had, say,
for example, a bad day in the market on Friday,
there were some areas if you have a balanced portfolio
that actually held up. Bonds held up really well, some
utility stocks held up well. It wasn't a wholesale sell off,
(26:25):
and frankly, the market was getting a bit overdone anyway.
So of course you're going to get more volatility because
markets trade off headline numbers at first with a knee
jerk reaction. Then they go in and they analyze it
and they go, okay, let's rationalize it, and then you
wind up seeing money sort of come back into markets.
We can't afford to do that as individual investors because
(26:47):
we will find it horribly and our returns will erode dramatically.
So anybody who sold at the bottom after Liberation Day
has to be kicking themselves because the market's up close
to the twy percent from that loan. So rebalancing the
portfolio if you feel uncomfortable with the volatility is one thing.
(27:08):
You know, making a wholesale move of getting all at
or all in based on headlines, you might as well
just go to CDs because you're going to lose a
lot of money doing that, and we have a lot
of headline risk out there. I have never and I've
been doing this over thirty years. I have never seen
headline risk so bombastic, so out off, over the top
(27:31):
that it makes you think the world is coming to
an end. And when we look at the numbers in
the economy, we see the economy is chugging along and
it's transitioning well, and it's handled all of this stuff
pretty well as far as all the unknowns. But markets
are consistently resilient because of where profit margins are and
(27:53):
because of AI assisting those margins. I don't know if
we'd be in the same boat if AI wasn't part
of this, but there's a lot of excitement around it
and formidable ways for companies to increase productivity per worker,
lower their head count, increase margins, and that's what companies
think about. So at the same time, it's nice to
(28:14):
see people making a little bit more money based on
average hourly yearnings. We're seeing a bit of a spike
in that three month number right now. It's over four
and a half percent annually now full point zero five
percent annual life. That's a pretty good number, and we
want to see that. We want to see people earn
what their wages are, but they're also probably being more
(28:35):
productive and working a little harder. And we're not seeing
people move from job to job because that's just not
going to happen. So we have so much going on
underneath the surface that can throw you off. And whatever
you're thinking about markets, what usually happens. I hate to say,
it's the opposite.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
Alrighty, well, I think that's just about all the time
that we've got. Thank you very much for your expertise
on all of this. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (29:01):
My pleasure.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Alrighty, have a good one, Thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
All righty, mister Russell, thank you for joining us, giving
us a little bit of an economic chat.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I love to digest. Their numbers are hard, they really are.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
I'm saying, this is a guy who hates math, and
the economy is all math. I'm terrible at math. I
always have been. It's half math and half gambling. So
I appreciate mister Rousso coming in to kind of help
us dig into that a little bit.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Oops, accidentally playing audio cuts early.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Anyway, let's dig in a little bit to something that's
going on here in Texas. We've got the redistricting going on,
the redistricting fight and We're gonna bounce around a little
bit in this segment, so I apologize, but I want
to cram a lot in here, so we're going.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
To do our best.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
So we've got the redistricting going on here in Texas,
and of course the Democrats are pissed off about it.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
They are.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
And again I've said this a number of times. I've
talked about this in detail on the show. Go back
and listen to it on the podcast The Next General
Report wherever you get podcasts, and we talk about the
fact that all this is is an effort to deracially
gerrymander the state, because that's what happened. You've got a
bunch of districts that were drawn specifically to make sure
(30:24):
all the minorities are in one district. And we're looking
at that and going, okay, well, that's essentially racial segregation.
Why do we want that? And the answer is the
Democrats want that because it helps them. They do better
with segregation. That's the Democrat argument right now. And so
they're trying to make this case that this somehow disenfranchises
(30:44):
black people.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
No, it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
It just means, hey, why are you voting just based
off of what your skin color is vote based off
of what your political interests are. That's the Republican point
of view. The Democrats realize that if people vote based
on what their actual interests are and what helps them versus, oh,
you're black, you have to vote Democrat, they start losing
(31:06):
votes quickly. One of the Democrats in the Texas House
accidentally said this the quiet part out loud. Here she
is in this redistricting hearing saying, hey, if you redraw
these districts, you're gonna have a Republican elected, not a
black person. And she's immediately challenged on, well, hold on
a minute, what do you mean a Republican not a
(31:27):
black person? Are there no black Republicans anymore? Is that
the Democrat position? You can't be black and a Republican.
You can't vote just based off of what your interests
are and not what color you are. That's the Democrat argument.
They're not supposed to say that out loud. That's supposed
to be the quiet part. This lady said it out loud.
Take a listen of nine.
Speaker 8 (31:47):
Being a district min artists, because Waight nine is configurated
and the areas they went in is going to elect
a Republican, not a black as to say it, and
I live in eighteen and I objected a new one.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
It is packing in eighteen.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
Understan repsent of Barbara Griver Hawkins, Dan Thompson Goose Gander
represented Piercing.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
You're entitled to a brief response.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
I just wanted to also state that just because you're
a Republican doesn't mean you won't be black if you're elected.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
That's all.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
So, just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you won't
be black if you're elected the Republican. You said the
district is going to elect a Republican and you said,
therefore not a black and I'm just saying you could
be apologized.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
I meant to say, it's not a democratic district. It
is a Republican drowned as a Republican district.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
That is a Freudian slip if I have ever heard one.
You're drawing it to be a Republican district, not a
black district. Yes, we're drawing it to be a Republican district.
Because we're the Republicans. We won the elections. We get
to draw the maps the way that we want. Those
are the rules. Whether you like it or not. Jerry
mandarin is legal.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
It has been.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Since the beginning of this country. It will be until
the end. There's no way around that. You can try
all you want to ben jerry mandering. There's no way
to do it. There just isn't. It will continue to happen.
Both sides will continue to do it. If you have
a problem with that, win the election. Their dirty little
secret about jerry mandering is if your ideas are good enough,
it doesn't actually matter. If you can actually convince enough
(33:22):
people in whatever area, you can win an election and
win a seat anyway. But the problem is we've become
so reliant on party politics or skin color politics, we
don't actually concern ourselves with the ideas of the candidates.
What are your actual policy positions, What are you actually
running on. That's what should matter. That's the only thing
(33:44):
that should matter. But no, that's forget that. That makes
too much sense. So, yes, it's a Republican district, it's
drawn to favor Republicans. But you're in Texas. The state
leans republican. It is a heavily report publican red state.
So any map you draw, unless it's jerry mandered, is
going to favor Republicans. But again, I can't stress this
(34:08):
enough how focused they are on racial politics, which is crazy.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
I thought we had moved past that. Can we not
just move past that?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
But no, her top concern is we have to make
sure it's a black person or hear me out, it's
somebody whose color doesn't matter, who represents the people and
their values in that area.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
I know that's a little bit radical.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
I may be a crazy right winger, but that's my
thoughts on the whole ordeal. Anyway, the Democrats are also
on a national level outraged at this, as why not.
They're now saying they're going to turn around and they're
going to Jerry Mander to get rid of all of
the Republican seats in red states. And honestly, to that,
I say, go for it. Why not let's push this
as far as it will go, just to see what happens. Really,
(34:50):
do it take out all the Republican state or are
all the Republican seats in Democrat states, and we'll do
the same in the Republican states, and we'll just see
what happens. I don't don't hate that idea. I'm kind
of curious frankly, to see what we do on a
societal level. I'm actually interested about this, so go for it.
But anyway, Chuck Schumer is again playing to racial politics
(35:12):
and all of this. He's saying that's how they're going
to fight back against Republicans bringing back Jim Crow. That's
the argument this somehow disenfranchises black voters, and again it
doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
The whole Democrat argument is.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
Black people can only vote if they're voting for black
people who also happen to be Democrats. There are no
black Republicans. Democrats don't believe they exist, which means black
people have to be only able to vote for black
people who are Democrats, and all of the districts they
live in have to be drawn to suit that otherwise
you're a racist. That doesn't make any sense. But that's
(35:49):
the Democrat argument on everything. And here is Chuck Schumer
saying essentially that he's talking about how this is just
another example of how racist Republicans want to bring back
Jim Crow. And he also put into the Save Act
as an example of this as well, which is just, hey,
maybe people should have IDs to vote.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
If you want IDs to vote.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
Or you want black people to just live in districts
that are drawn politically rather than racially. You're a racist.
And again I want everybody to live in those districts.
By the way, everybody should live in districts that are
drawn politically, not racially.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Chuck Schumer disagrees here. He is saying that.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
It's been clear when we fight for democracy, when we
protect democracy, we got to fight fire with fire. We're
not going to stand idly by, as Maya said, We're
not going to let him revert to Jim Crow. And
if you don't think they want to revert to Jim Crow,
just look what they did in the Save Act, which
went back to Kim Crow for the whole nation by.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
So making it hard.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
They said, you need ID, and they made it so
hard to show ID that probably half the people in
America couldn't vote.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
We wouldn't let it pass Democrats.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
They needed our vote. They went to court, many of
us Durban myself.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
In other worlds. He turned away from the mic here.
I don't know why he did that. That's so strategy.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
It shows why we need legislation because these guys are
undoing everything in every way they can. They don't want
poor people to vote. They don't want people of.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Color to vote.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
They don't want Democrats to vote. They don't believe in democracy.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
We do.
Speaker 4 (37:25):
I don't believe in democracy. I believe in our constitutional republic,
first of all. Take notes of there. But anyway, that's
his argument. We don't want poor people to vote, we
don't want black people to vote, we don't want Democrats
to vote. I wish you wouldn't because I think you're
stupid and the world would be better off if you
didn't vote.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
But I believe in your right to vote.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
You're part of this system too, and you're allowed to
be stupid in this system, so go for it. I
just don't understand how you get there. I don't understand
how it is racist to say your district that you
live in should be drawn to reflect your political interest.
It's not your skin color. It makes perfect sense if
you're frankly not a racist. People can have different skin
(38:07):
tones and still share the same values. The Democrats don't
believe that. The Democrats believe that if you are black,
you have to be a Democrat, and if you're not
in a district of exclusively black people who are also Democrat,
you somehow can't vote anymore if you're required to say, look,
here's my ID, I am who I say I am?
That's somehow racist. You can't vote if you do that.
(38:30):
None of this makes any sense, and it all just
goes to expose the fact that Democrats are kind of racist.
They are, and they hope you don't notice, and I
want you to.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
You need to notice.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
They are a racist party, even if it's unintentionally. And honestly,
I don't understand these people.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
Anyway, that's the show this evening, folks. Thanks for listening.
As always, check out the podcast The Next General Report,
and check me out on social media at underscore Ethan
Buchanan on X. We'll be back next time I see them.
From the heart of the Space City to the heart
of gen Z. Welcome to Next Gen Conversation, not Dad's
Talk Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Ethan talks to you about the issues and events the
men are to our generation.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
This is the Next Gen Report with Ethan can.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Hey.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Good evening, Houston. How are we I'm doing great. You
didn't ask, but I'm doing great.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I went to a weird Al concert on Friday. So
if my voice sounds horse throughout the show this evening,
actually I think it kind of made me sound a
little cooler. It sounds like I've been doing this for
longer than I have, which is good. But if my
voice is hoarse, that's why I was screaming my happy
(00:51):
little butt off the entire concert. I am a huge
weird Alfan. I have been since I was like eight
years old. I can recite white and Nerdy from on
the spot. I won't do it now, I'll save you
from that. So, needless to say, that weird Al concert
was an unbelievable experience for me, and I was screaming
the entire time, and so that has had some negative
(01:14):
side effects on my voice because I did not do
what my choir teacher told me, and I did not
hydrate beforehand. So all that being said, let's dig into
some of the old news. We've had a lot of
stuff break over this week. This has been a busy,
busy week for me. So let's start with I think
(01:37):
Russia Gate. That's a good place to kick off. Obviously,
we've been getting a lot of revelations about this, which
is good.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
This is good. We need to know the full and
absolute truth here.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
But so we kind of found out that the Obama administration,
as he was on his way out, was kind of
winking and nodding at his administration officials, his intelligence community,
basically okaying them to kind of allegedly, I should say,
(02:11):
allegedly okaying them. It looks like he was aware of
the fact and winking and nodding at the fact that
the intelligence community was completely making all of this Russia
collusion stuff up. That's what the documents as we have them,
seem to indicate. The intelligence community right after the election
came to President Obama with a report that basically said, yeah,
(02:36):
the Russians didn't really interfere at all with our election,
and Obama essentially winks and nods and says check again.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
All right, So draw your conclusions there.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
So now we know not only did Obama allegedly probably
have a direct role in this, Hillary Clinton also allegedly
probably definitely had a role in this. And that's according
to documents that the FBI has that were just declassified
by the Trump administration. Read the documents that prove Hillary
(03:10):
Clinton okayed a plan to smear Trump with Russia collusion.
This is from the New York Post. Hillary Clinton signed
off on a plan hatched by a top campaign advisor
to smear then candidate Donald Trump with false claims of
Russian collusion and distract from her own mounting email scandal
during the twenty sixteen campaign. According to explosive intelligence files
(03:34):
declassified on Thursday, the twenty four page intelligence annex was
compiled for memos and emails obtained by the Obama administration
in the lead up to election day that laid out
confidential conversations quote unquote between leaders of the Democrat National Committee,
including then chaired Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and liberal billionaire George
(03:54):
Soros's Open Society Foundation. So essentially, this is all the
brainchild of the Clinton campaigns of foreign policy I believe
it is director, Yeah, foreign Policy Director Julianne Smith included
raising the themes of Putin's support for Trump and subsequently
(04:15):
steering public opinion toward the notion that it needs to
equate the Russian leader's political influence campaign with actual hacking
of election infrastructure. So they completely made this up. One
of the largest kind of political scandals in modern American
history we now know, I think beyond a shadow of
(04:36):
a reasonable doubt, was completely manufactured by the opposition party
that is Crazy. Open Society Senior vice president Leonard Bernardo
was looped in on the scheme and laid out its
intended effects in a series of emails in late July
twenty sixteen. One of the emails says, Julie says it
(04:56):
will be a long term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.
Bernardo was quoted as writing on July twenty fifth, Now
it's good for a post convention bounce. Later the FBI
will put more oil onto the fire. So not only
did they completely manufacture this political scandal to target their opponent,
(05:17):
they planned they intentionally planned to use official channels to
make it look worse than it actually is. And I
say worse it They made it up, and then they said,
don't worry, the FBI will make it look legit, even
though we just crafted this nonsense, and that's exactly what
(05:37):
ended up happening after the election.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
This is insane.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Two days later, Bernardo wrote, HRC presumably that stands for
Hillary Rodham. Clinton approved Julia's idea about Trump and Russian
hackers hampering US elections. That should distract people from her
own missing emails, especially if the affair goes to the
Olympic level. Oh my god, So we have emails that
(06:05):
clearly indicate the Clinton campaign made this up and planned
for the FBI support that they got, which is insanely
like third world. And then on top of that, Hillary
Clinton probably definitely had an active role in this. This
isn't just her staffers doing this behind her back like
(06:25):
she didn't know. She, according to this email, allegedly signed
off on it, and then she spent the next several
months campaigning on it. To this day, she still goes
out occasionally and says Russia stole the twenty sixteen election,
even though she knows that her campaign staff made that up. Allegedly,
libs of TikTok went and posted a bunch of Hillary
(06:47):
Clinton tweets about this. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a
covert server linking Trump organization to a Russia based bank.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
She knew this was a lie when she tweeted it.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
It should concern every American that Russia is willing to
engage in such a hostile acts in order to help
Donald Trump become president. She knows this is BS, but
there she is tweeting this in twenty sixteen. That's when
these are dated. Yeah, twenty sixteen. She knew all of
this was BS because her team came up with it
(07:19):
allegedly with her approval.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
This is baffling, it really is.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
You should be concerned about this because what this shows
you is the deep state is real. It's not some
crazy right wing conspiracy theory. It's not your goofy uncle
with the garage beers and the tinfoil hat.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
No, here it is. Here's the documents.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
A political campaign made up a lie and they knew
they could count on the FBI to help them push
it and make it legitimate. That is insane. All right,
stay tune, we got a great show coming up. This
is the Next Gen Report on AM nine to fifty KPRC.
We will be right back. All right, We're gonna stay
(08:19):
on this Clinton Russia stuff for a minute because there's
just so much here. There's a lot of video I
want to play sound I want to give you on
this because I'm a little bit worried that because.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
It's been so long since twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
I remind you, we're almost ten years removed from the
start of all this, so it's easy for all of
these memories to kind of fade, and I think it's
important that they not. We need to understand exactly how
big of a deal this is. I mean, this completely
dominated the twenty sixteen campaign and the first three and
a half years of Trump's first administration and has persisted
(08:57):
on to this day until the Trump administration started releasing
all the documents that basically kill all this.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
So here's what we're gonna do.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
We're gonna spend this segment kind of rehashing a lot
of that twenty sixteen nonsense that we had to deal with,
and then in the next segment, we'll talk a little
bit about the economy, because we have a lot of
economic news that I think is very important. And Richard Rosso,
who is one of my go to financial guys, this
guy's brilliant. He will be joining us in the next
(09:27):
segment to talk a little bit about what we're seeing
in the economy. But let's knock out this Russia stuff,
and then we'll talk to Richard Rosso. He's coming up,
he's getting ready to hop on with us. And then
in the final segment, we'll just kind of do a
big roundup of a bunch of different stuff. So there's
the plan. Let's get to it. So here is a
(09:48):
clip of Hillary Clinton. Just to remind you, libs of
TikTok tweeted this video out along with the email, saying
HRC approved all of this. This woman was lying through
her teeth that entire campaign cycle and has never been
called on it, has never apologized, has never faced any
(10:08):
consequences at all. As a matter of fact, the people
that helped her formulate these lies, even though she lost
that election, they went on to hold prominent positions of
power later in the Biden administration. The foreign policy director
that was, according to these emails, playing a major role
(10:30):
in creating all of this stuff, she went on to be,
I believe, a UN ambassador.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Where is the breakdown of that?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Here it is sorry, not UN.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
She was the ambassador to NATO under Joe Biden, Julie Smith,
and she said, I don't have any comment. That's what
she told the New York Post when she was reached
out about this. That is unbelievable. She was a NATO
ambassador after outright lying to the American people, formulating just
completely out of whole cloth, one of the most insane,
(11:04):
I guess, political scandals in modern American history, no consequences.
And then, of course here's Hillary Clinton on ABC's The View,
lying through her teeth about all of this.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
There is no denying that the Russians interfered in the election, right,
whether or not they had willing or unwitting help from
the Trump team, they interfered, and they did so to
help him and hurt me, and they did so to
destabilize our democracy.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And they have not stopped.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Okay, so everything she just said is demonstratably false. According
to these documents that we've now had release, not only
did the Russians not interfere in the election, they also
were not trying to help Trump win. As a matter
of fact, we now know that they were planning for
Hillary Clinton to win and had prepared a massive slew
(11:59):
of intelligen leaks about Hillary Clinton's health issues that they
were going to release after she won to destabilize not
only her administration but public faith in the United States
government as a whole. And she knew all this and
lied about it on the view anyway, unbelievable, unbelievable. Now
(12:19):
she's allowed to do this. Unfortunately, she's allowed to lie
about it. I don't think she's allowed to completely make
all this stuff up. There should be legal consequences here.
Will any of this ever actually come back to haunt
Hillary Clinton? Will Hillary Clinton ever face an actual trial
over any of this? No, probably not. She has plausible
(12:40):
deniability and everything. HRC could stand for whatever in those emails.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
But she knew, she knew it was a lie. She
knew it was a lie that her people came up with.
And then she turns around.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
She goes on MSNBC and her and Rachel Maddow sit
there and say, oh, well, since the Russians are so
clearly and obviously and undeniably helping Donald Trump, Hey China,
can y'all come help us the Democrats? I'm not kidding
this happened. She lied about Donald Trump being helped by
the Russians and then use that as grounds to go
(13:12):
on Rachel Maddow's show and ask the Russians or to
ask the Chinese for help. This is the clown world
that we live in. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
You know, the only other adversary of ours who's anywhere
near as good as the Russians is China. So why
should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is
clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I here by tonight, ask China, that's right?
Speaker 5 (13:41):
And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't
you get Trump's tax returns?
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I'm sure our media would richly reward you.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Okay, even if she is joking, which she's probably joking,
that's weird, right, Can we just acknowledge that that's that's
a weird thing for a politician to do, which I
think is probably why she ended up losing that election.
This is the dirty little secret that nobody wants to
mention about Hillary Clinton. She's not popular, and she never
(14:12):
has been. She's a slightly more polished version of Kamala Harris.
I think she's deeply unpopular. Most people think she's kind
of weird and conniving and just goofy.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
But she has enough sort.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Of Democrat power brokers behind her, and enough folks in
the media that are willing to sit there and pretend
that she's popular in order to push her to certain
levels of political heights. But all that being said, when
you do stuff like this, it's weird. I think at
the time people watching that were like, this is weird.
This is weird for you to do. It's weird for
(14:49):
you to ask China of all countries to help you
win the election after accusing Donald Trump of using the
Russians to help him win the election, which of course
we now know is a lie that she made up.
I mean at ages like milk. All of this stuff
ages like milk. But it wasn't good at the time either.
(15:10):
And again, just to give you an idea of how
persistent this narrative was in our culture and our political
culture for the last ten years. Even as recently as
the twenty twenty election, this carried on. We all remember
Hunter Biden's laptop, right, The argument that Russia helped Trump
in twenty sixteen became the backbone of the argument that
(15:33):
Hunter Biden's laptop, which we know for a fact is
real and his Hunter Biden's was also Russian plant. There's
a strong case to be made that that, in line
with COVID, was one of the reasons Donald Trump lost
in twenty twenty. So while it didn't help Hillary Clinton win,
it clearly did help Joe Biden win. Take a listen
to all the different times that Joe Biden swore up
(15:55):
and down, no, this is a Russian plant. This laptop
is not Hunter Biden's, this is all fake. This is
Russian disinformation.
Speaker 6 (16:02):
Fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what this
he's accusing me of is a Russian plant.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
They have said that this has.
Speaker 6 (16:12):
All the four five former heads of the CIA, both
parties say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage.
This is classic Trump. We have four days left and
all of a sudden, there's a laptop. There's overwhelming evidence
that from the intelligence community that the Russians are engaged.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
From the Ball of Africa.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
Said yes, yes, yes, I know you asked. I have
no response Frompaign. It's the lastest effort in this desperate
campaign to smear me and my family. The vast majority
of the intelligence people have come out and said there's
no basis at all.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And the argument to support that claim from the left
and from the Biden campaign was always remember they did
the same thing in twenty sixteen, the Russians helped him win,
and we all now know that it was fake. It
was bs the entire time. People should face consequences for this.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Because again I remind you, the FBI under a Barack
Obama poured fuel on all this fire, just like the
Hillary Clinton campaign said they would in these emails that
we now have thanks.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
To the FBI and the Trump administration, this is insane.
This is third world stuff.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
You've got a political campaign openly working in line with
the administration in power to create lies about the opposition.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
That's wild. That's what happened here. All right, Stay tuned.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
We've got a lot coming up about the economy with
Richard Rosso. Just one quick ad break and we will
be right back with that. I'm easy, Buchannan, this is
the next Gen Report. Stay tuned, all right. So we've
(18:16):
had a whole mix of economic news. Some of it
is good, some of it is bad. It's been a
very busy week economically, and I am by no means
a financial expert. But I do know a guy who is,
and so I've brought him in to have a chat
with us. Mister Richard Rosso, certified Financial Planner. Thank you
for taking the time to join me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (18:38):
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
So let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
We had this really good report on the GDP for
quarter two that comes in at three percent growth. That
seems like it should be setting up a week of
great news, but it didn't.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Where did that three percent growth in the GDP he
come from? And what exactly does that mean in layman's
terms for the average You know Joe saving for his
four oh one k and voted for Trump for a
better economy.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Well, we did have a three percent jump in GDP
for April April through June period and that was pretty good. Right,
So we saw consumer spending still decent one point four
percent in the second quarter. That's better than it was
in prior periods. You know, we have erratic import export
numbers because of tariffs. We had front loaded quite a
(19:36):
bit of inventory before tariffs, right, so we see our
numbers when it comes to GDP jumping all over the
place because everybody is trying to figure out how much
inventory do I need? How are tariffs going to affect us?
So but you have to say when you look at
that number that the economy is fairly resistant, I mean resilient,
(19:58):
and the consumer is definit we you know, disdoundingly and
you go spending. That's what we do and we're continuing
to do it. So on that level, you know, numbers
look really pretty good.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
So let's dig into the tariffs a little bit, because
you know, heading towards the end of the week, we
got all this tariff news and of course people are
saying it's the end of the world, and then on
the other side, people are saying, no, it's fine, this
is all part of the plan. And the big question
here is really just is this going to cause more inflation?
All of the other stuff, you know, the politicals and
(20:33):
whatnot can worry about that, But what the average consumer
is worried about is is this going to hurt my
wallet or not? So where do we stand with the
tariffs and what can people expect over the next you know,
month to two months to maybe three as these tariffs
come into effect and as maybe some deals are.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
Worked on, well, keep in mind, and this is something
President Trump discussed. You are you are moving into or
what I call it transition period or a transition economy.
You are trying to move from a government job laiden,
government stimulus economy back to the private sector. That creates
(21:17):
a lot of uncertainty on how things operate. So when
you look at corporate profits and you look at inflation overall,
it's relatively benign, right, But when you look at core
services PCE, that's something the FED looks at. It's up
over three percent for the third month in a row,
(21:38):
and that's hotter than it's been before the pandemic, and
that keeps core PCE and overall PCE above that two
percent FED target. So we are seeing a spike durable
goods prices that is mostly terrif related. You have to
keep in mind we are as services economy. Eighty percent
of what we do in america's service related. There is
(22:01):
really no tariff related hangover in services. Tariffs hit goods,
manufactured goods. So you're hearing from a lot of companies,
a lot of CEOs are lamenting about the fact that
they're having to eat these tariffs because frankly, people don't
know whether or not the consumer is going to do this, right,
(22:23):
Consumers are inflation resistant and to pass on these costs
is sort of precarious for an organization to do so.
If a cat if a cat and mouse gain, how
long do they continue to absorb some of these margin costs?
You know, these costs that are going to hit margins
so that consumers are not are feeling it. We are
(22:47):
seeing increases in wages, so companies are paying more than
they have in the past above the current rate of
change of inflation.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So that's really.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
What you want for that that prices can balance out.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
Yeah, right, So you want people to get more wages
above the current rate of inflation. Although I would argue
that every household's rate of inflation differs, right, and an
older couple's rate of inflation for their household could be
very different than a young couple with children. But for
the most part the advertised numbers, if my pcees roughly,
(23:28):
I'm getting wage increases above the rate of inflation, and
that's what we want. The issue becomes is that's very
what we call sticky inflation, which means it doesn't really
drop off very quickly at all. Thus, it postpones the
FED from making any moves to lower rates when we
(23:50):
get an inflation number like we got before. Now, there
was some hope with these employment numbers not being as
good as expected that the FED may come in in September,
so in lower rates. The odds of a rate cut
have increased because of those numbers. But I would say
(24:12):
there's a lot of discrepancy in these numbers, and part
of it is again because of the flow of immigrants
and AI, which again is a variable that we're seeing
is very important when it comes to these numbers. But
yet I did not hear a lot about it in
media about how large scale layoffs our companies are looking
(24:33):
to wind down. I mean, Bank of America said, listen,
the company's headcount is going to continue to fall. They
went from three hundred thousand people to like two hundred
and ten to twelve thousand people, and they're going to
keep working that down. With AI, we're going to see
a lot of mental management, white collar jobs go out
the window, and that is also going to affect numbers.
(24:57):
But yet you might see that the unemployment number don't
really go up because the supply of labors equally the
demand of labor. We don't have a lot of people
looking for jobs because maybe they're not in the country anymore.
So this is what we have to remember that companies,
especially if they have to eat some of these tariffs,
they are going to consistently aggressively use AI to reduce headcount.
(25:23):
And that is something we're going to have to deal with.
That was going to be regardless of the president or not.
We just have all this other stuff going on right now.
Obviously that's affecting market volatility and how we feel about things.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
All righty, well, yeah, I think that's a good summary
of things. It kind of seems like we're very much
still in that, you know, we need to wait and
see what exactly is going on. We've got a lot
of different cogs moving sort of below the surface, and
we see the headlines, but the headlines are just that headlines.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
They're in the moment. Don't look at you know.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
One handful or one week's worth of of concerning headlines
and think, oh, well, the economies in the toilet.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
Well, and this is where investors and people watching their
four to one case because even though we had, say,
for example, a bad day in the market on Friday,
there were some areas if you have a balanced portfolio
that actually held up. Bonds held up really well, some
utility stocks held up well. It wasn't a wholesale sell off,
(26:25):
and frankly, the market was getting a bit overdone anyway.
So of course you're going to get more volatility because
markets trade off headline numbers at first with a knee
jerk reaction. Then they go in and they analyze it
and they go, okay, let's rationalize it, and then you
wind up seeing money sort of come back into markets.
We can't afford to do that as individual investors because
(26:47):
we will find it horribly and our returns will erode dramatically.
So anybody who sold at the bottom after Liberation Day
has to be kicking themselves because the market's up close
to the twy percent from that loan. So rebalancing the
portfolio if you feel uncomfortable with the volatility is one thing.
(27:08):
You know, making a wholesale move of getting all at
or all in based on headlines, you might as well
just go to CDs because you're going to lose a
lot of money doing that, and we have a lot
of headline risk out there. I have never and I've
been doing this over thirty years. I have never seen
headline risk so bombastic, so out off, over the top
(27:31):
that it makes you think the world is coming to
an end. And when we look at the numbers in
the economy, we see the economy is chugging along and
it's transitioning well, and it's handled all of this stuff
pretty well as far as all the unknowns. But markets
are consistently resilient because of where profit margins are and
(27:53):
because of AI assisting those margins. I don't know if
we'd be in the same boat if AI wasn't part
of this, but there's a lot of excitement around it
and formidable ways for companies to increase productivity per worker,
lower their head count, increase margins, and that's what companies
think about. So at the same time, it's nice to
(28:14):
see people making a little bit more money based on
average hourly yearnings. We're seeing a bit of a spike
in that three month number right now. It's over four
and a half percent annually now full point zero five
percent annual life. That's a pretty good number, and we
want to see that. We want to see people earn
what their wages are, but they're also probably being more
(28:35):
productive and working a little harder. And we're not seeing
people move from job to job because that's just not
going to happen. So we have so much going on
underneath the surface that can throw you off. And whatever
you're thinking about markets, what usually happens. I hate to say,
it's the opposite.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
Alrighty, well, I think that's just about all the time
that we've got. Thank you very much for your expertise
on all of this. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (29:01):
My pleasure.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Alrighty, have a good one, Thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
All righty, mister Russell, thank you for joining us, giving
us a little bit of an economic chat.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I love to digest. Their numbers are hard, they really are.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
I'm saying, this is a guy who hates math, and
the economy is all math. I'm terrible at math. I
always have been. It's half math and half gambling. So
I appreciate mister Rousso coming in to kind of help
us dig into that a little bit.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Oops, accidentally playing audio cuts early.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Anyway, let's dig in a little bit to something that's
going on here in Texas. We've got the redistricting going on,
the redistricting fight and We're gonna bounce around a little
bit in this segment, so I apologize, but I want
to cram a lot in here, so we're going.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
To do our best.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
So we've got the redistricting going on here in Texas,
and of course the Democrats are pissed off about it.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
They are.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
And again I've said this a number of times. I've
talked about this in detail on the show. Go back
and listen to it on the podcast The Next General
Report wherever you get podcasts, and we talk about the
fact that all this is is an effort to deracially
gerrymander the state, because that's what happened. You've got a
bunch of districts that were drawn specifically to make sure
(30:24):
all the minorities are in one district. And we're looking
at that and going, okay, well, that's essentially racial segregation.
Why do we want that? And the answer is the
Democrats want that because it helps them. They do better
with segregation. That's the Democrat argument right now. And so
they're trying to make this case that this somehow disenfranchises
(30:44):
black people.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
No, it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
It just means, hey, why are you voting just based
off of what your skin color is vote based off
of what your political interests are. That's the Republican point
of view. The Democrats realize that if people vote based
on what their actual interests are and what helps them versus, oh,
you're black, you have to vote Democrat, they start losing
(31:06):
votes quickly. One of the Democrats in the Texas House
accidentally said this the quiet part out loud. Here she
is in this redistricting hearing saying, hey, if you redraw
these districts, you're gonna have a Republican elected, not a
black person. And she's immediately challenged on, well, hold on
a minute, what do you mean a Republican not a
(31:27):
black person? Are there no black Republicans anymore? Is that
the Democrat position? You can't be black and a Republican.
You can't vote just based off of what your interests
are and not what color you are. That's the Democrat argument.
They're not supposed to say that out loud. That's supposed
to be the quiet part. This lady said it out loud.
Take a listen of nine.
Speaker 8 (31:47):
Being a district min artists, because Waight nine is configurated
and the areas they went in is going to elect
a Republican, not a black as to say it, and
I live in eighteen and I objected a new one.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
It is packing in eighteen.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
Understan repsent of Barbara Griver Hawkins, Dan Thompson Goose Gander
represented Piercing.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
You're entitled to a brief response.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
I just wanted to also state that just because you're
a Republican doesn't mean you won't be black if you're elected.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
That's all.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
So, just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you won't
be black if you're elected the Republican. You said the
district is going to elect a Republican and you said,
therefore not a black and I'm just saying you could
be apologized.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
I meant to say, it's not a democratic district. It
is a Republican drowned as a Republican district.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
That is a Freudian slip if I have ever heard one.
You're drawing it to be a Republican district, not a
black district. Yes, we're drawing it to be a Republican district.
Because we're the Republicans. We won the elections. We get
to draw the maps the way that we want. Those
are the rules. Whether you like it or not. Jerry
mandarin is legal.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
It has been.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Since the beginning of this country. It will be until
the end. There's no way around that. You can try
all you want to ben jerry mandering. There's no way
to do it. There just isn't. It will continue to happen.
Both sides will continue to do it. If you have
a problem with that, win the election. Their dirty little
secret about jerry mandering is if your ideas are good enough,
it doesn't actually matter. If you can actually convince enough
(33:22):
people in whatever area, you can win an election and
win a seat anyway. But the problem is we've become
so reliant on party politics or skin color politics, we
don't actually concern ourselves with the ideas of the candidates.
What are your actual policy positions, What are you actually
running on. That's what should matter. That's the only thing
(33:44):
that should matter. But no, that's forget that. That makes
too much sense. So, yes, it's a Republican district, it's
drawn to favor Republicans. But you're in Texas. The state
leans republican. It is a heavily report publican red state.
So any map you draw, unless it's jerry mandered, is
going to favor Republicans. But again, I can't stress this
(34:08):
enough how focused they are on racial politics, which is crazy.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
I thought we had moved past that. Can we not
just move past that?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
But no, her top concern is we have to make
sure it's a black person or hear me out, it's
somebody whose color doesn't matter, who represents the people and
their values in that area.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
I know that's a little bit radical.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
I may be a crazy right winger, but that's my
thoughts on the whole ordeal. Anyway, the Democrats are also
on a national level outraged at this, as why not.
They're now saying they're going to turn around and they're
going to Jerry Mander to get rid of all of
the Republican seats in red states. And honestly, to that,
I say, go for it. Why not let's push this
as far as it will go, just to see what happens. Really,
(34:50):
do it take out all the Republican state or are
all the Republican seats in Democrat states, and we'll do
the same in the Republican states, and we'll just see
what happens. I don't don't hate that idea. I'm kind
of curious frankly, to see what we do on a
societal level. I'm actually interested about this, so go for it.
But anyway, Chuck Schumer is again playing to racial politics
(35:12):
and all of this. He's saying that's how they're going
to fight back against Republicans bringing back Jim Crow. That's
the argument this somehow disenfranchises black voters, and again it
doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
The whole Democrat argument is.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
Black people can only vote if they're voting for black
people who also happen to be Democrats. There are no
black Republicans. Democrats don't believe they exist, which means black
people have to be only able to vote for black
people who are Democrats, and all of the districts they
live in have to be drawn to suit that otherwise
you're a racist. That doesn't make any sense. But that's
(35:49):
the Democrat argument on everything. And here is Chuck Schumer
saying essentially that he's talking about how this is just
another example of how racist Republicans want to bring back
Jim Crow. And he also put into the Save Act
as an example of this as well, which is just, hey,
maybe people should have IDs to vote.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
If you want IDs to vote.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
Or you want black people to just live in districts
that are drawn politically rather than racially. You're a racist.
And again I want everybody to live in those districts.
By the way, everybody should live in districts that are
drawn politically, not racially.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Chuck Schumer disagrees here. He is saying that.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
It's been clear when we fight for democracy, when we
protect democracy, we got to fight fire with fire. We're
not going to stand idly by, as Maya said, We're
not going to let him revert to Jim Crow. And
if you don't think they want to revert to Jim Crow,
just look what they did in the Save Act, which
went back to Kim Crow for the whole nation by.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
So making it hard.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
They said, you need ID, and they made it so
hard to show ID that probably half the people in
America couldn't vote.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
We wouldn't let it pass Democrats.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
They needed our vote. They went to court, many of
us Durban myself.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
In other worlds. He turned away from the mic here.
I don't know why he did that. That's so strategy.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
It shows why we need legislation because these guys are
undoing everything in every way they can. They don't want
poor people to vote. They don't want people of.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Color to vote.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
They don't want Democrats to vote. They don't believe in democracy.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
We do.
Speaker 4 (37:25):
I don't believe in democracy. I believe in our constitutional republic,
first of all. Take notes of there. But anyway, that's
his argument. We don't want poor people to vote, we
don't want black people to vote, we don't want Democrats
to vote. I wish you wouldn't because I think you're
stupid and the world would be better off if you
didn't vote.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
But I believe in your right to vote.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
You're part of this system too, and you're allowed to
be stupid in this system, so go for it. I
just don't understand how you get there. I don't understand
how it is racist to say your district that you
live in should be drawn to reflect your political interest.
It's not your skin color. It makes perfect sense if
you're frankly not a racist. People can have different skin
(38:07):
tones and still share the same values. The Democrats don't
believe that. The Democrats believe that if you are black,
you have to be a Democrat, and if you're not
in a district of exclusively black people who are also Democrat,
you somehow can't vote anymore if you're required to say, look,
here's my ID, I am who I say I am?
That's somehow racist. You can't vote if you do that.
(38:30):
None of this makes any sense, and it all just
goes to expose the fact that Democrats are kind of racist.
They are, and they hope you don't notice, and I
want you to.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
You need to notice.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
They are a racist party, even if it's unintentionally. And honestly,
I don't understand these people.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
Anyway, that's the show this evening, folks. Thanks for listening.
As always, check out the podcast The Next General Report,
and check me out on social media at underscore Ethan
Buchanan on X. We'll be back next time I see them.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com